Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (MEDWAY LOWER NAVIGATION) BILL

Reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (GLOUCESTER) BILL

Reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

JOSEPH ROWNTREE MEMORIAL TRUST BILL [Lords]

Reported, with an Amendment (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

FALMOUTH DOCKS BILL [Lords]

Reported, with Amendments (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

National and Local Government Officers' Association

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Labour if he has considered a letter which the National and Local Government Officers' Association recently sent him, complaining of an employer's refusal to recognise the Association as a negotiating body in a dispute where over 80 per cent. of the members of the clerical and supervisory staff have joined the Association; and what action he will take in response to the Association's appeal to help them resolve this dispute.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): Yes, Sir, and I have arranged in the first instance for my officers to discuss the matter with representatives of the Association.

Mr. Swingler: Whilst thanking the Minister for that action, may I ask him whether he does not think that the workers concerned are being extraordinarily patient and restrained in view of the fact that the refusal to recognise the Association has gone on over a period of years? Will his Department take some serious action to make the employers see reason?

Mr. Macleod: I am meeting, or rather my representatives are meeting, representatives of the Association tomorrow, so we are moving as quickly as we can on that. With respect, I think that the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question goes too wide. I do not think it is right for the Minister of Labour, or within his power, to force any employer to recognise any particular association. I am, however, very glad to have these talks.

Redundancy (Compensation Schemes)

Mr. Oliver: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will give the number of redundancy compensation schemes now in operation by firms and industries in this country.

Mr. Moyle: asked the Minister of Labour if he will arrange to publish details of industrial schemes of compensation for redundancy now in operation.

Mr. Iain Macleod: No comprehensive figures are available, but a certain amount of information has been collected by my Department; these details could not be made public without the authority of the firms concerned.
I have already published details of some specimens of redundancy schemes in the booklet "Positive Employment Policies", and I am sending the hon. Members copies. Information on this subject was also given in the publication "Redundancy" of the Acton Society Trust.
I am considering how best to bring to the notice of industry the additional information on this subject collected by my Department since these two booklets were published.

Mr. Lee: In the information which the right hon. Gentleman gives us about the schemes will he include information of the schemes under which directors retire on £60,000 or something of that sort—the method by which it is done?

School Leavers

Mr. Moyle: asked the Minister of Labour, having regard to the increasing number of teen-agers leaving school in the period 1960–62, his plans for providing them with suitable employment on leaving school.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Richard Wood): I am confident that an expanding economy will absorb these school leavers into employment, but training opportunities will need to be considerably expanded. This is engaging the attention of the Industrial Training Council.

Mr. Moyle: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the plans of the Minister for the future include consideration of the continuation of part-time education for these teen-agers so as to strengthen their prospects of finding suitable and profitable employment?

Mr. Wood: I think that the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is wide of the Question. Perhaps he will put down another Question.

Mr. Robens: On the question of youngsters leaving school and the problem of finding work for them, will the Parliamentary Secretary consider issuing from time to time a report about the progress of the Industrial Training Council in order that we may be kept abreast of what is happening?

Mr. Wood: Yes, I will certainly do that.

Remploy Factory, Sunderland

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Labour what proposals have been made to extend the Remploy factory at Sunderland.

Mr. Wood: No such extension is proposed at present.

Mr. Willey: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that not only have we a very high incidence of unemployment among the disabled in Sunderland but that recently one of his own officials said that the real problem is that the seriously disabled have no prospect of obtaining employment in open industry? In view of this, does he not think that the Government must accept the obligation of providing employment for these seriously disabled persons who, otherwise, will be thoroughly demoralised?

Mr. Wood: I, of course, am with the hon. Gentleman in wanting to find employment for those people who are not fit for employment in open industry. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a Remploy factory and a workshop for the blind, and they employ a number of very severely disabled people. The number of severely disabled without employment is about the same now as it was two or three years ago. Although I should like to see the facilities increased, I am told that at the moment the position of Remploy is not sufficient to give it any hope of increasing the facilities which it is at present offering.

Factory, Cardiff (Closure)

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the imminent closure of the Cardiff Foundry and Engineering Company (1947) due to a fall in demand for iron castings; and whether, in view of the consequent unemployment of Cardiff workers, he will make a statement on alternative employment prospects.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Yes, Sir Of 80 workers dismissed in the past few weeks, only 22 are still registered as unemployed, 6 of whom are under submission to vacancies. Efforts to place those unemployed will continue and I am encouraged by the progress already made in resolving this redundancy.

Mr. Thomas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the B.S.A., which is the main holder of this company, has behaved very badly indeed to the apprentices, some of whom have completed two or three years and were just thrown out without their time counting? Would he ask this firm to give further consideration to the question of finding work for these apprentices?

Mr. Macleod: I will look at the point about apprentices, which is a new one to me. The firm has certainly provided redundancy payments for many of these people. On the general question, perhaps the hon. Member will remember that he had this Question down for me last week, when I was going to give him an extremely discouraging answer. The position has improved so much in the last few days that we have made a great deal of progress in regard to these people.

R.A.F. Station, Andover (Civilian Employees)

Mr. Denzil Freeth: asked the Minister of Labour what additional facilities he will provide at the end of 1960 to help the 570 civilians now employed at No. 41 Group Headquarters, Royal Air Force station, Andover, who will then become redundant.

Mr. Iain Macleod: It is too soon to say how many civilian employees will become redundant at the end of 1960 and whether any additional facilities will then be needed to assist them to find other employment.

Mr. Freeth: Will my right hon. Friend consider keeping in touch with the Secretary of State for Air, so that his regional officer in Andover may contact those who are likely to become redundant, as soon as definite information is known about individual cases?

Mr. Macleod: Yes. We are, of course, closely in touch, but in an area where unemployment is under 1 per cent. it is too far in front of the event to make detailed plans. If advanced registration nearer the time will help, of course we will arrange it.

Mr. Lee: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the request he made some time ago, which was reinforced from all parts of the House, that employers who are about to discard, or in future will discard, some of their labour should give local employment exchanges as much prior notice as they can? In connection with this industry I have the same problem at Burtonwood. Could the right hon. Gentleman make a special effort to reinforce the original plea which he made?

Mr. Macleod: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that suggestion. Nothing is more helpful to the placing of workers than if I and my officers can have advance information about prospective changes in employment, either up or down.

Mr. Robens: On the question of apprentices, it is common ground on both sides of the House that we do not want to see them have their apprenticeship broken after one or two years, in the way mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) in his supplementary question on Question No. 5. Would the Minister

ask his officers to look specially at the question of redundancy in connection with apprentices, who might be transferred to other places at which their apprenticeship could be continued?

Mr. Macleod: I will certainly do so. I was going to write to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) about the last Question. I will send a copy to the right hon. Gentleman, if I may.

Retail Prices Index (Food Prices)

Sir A. Hurd: asked the Minister of Labour to what extent the total of food items in the retail prices index has changed in the past year.

Mr. Iain Macleod: At 12th May, 1959, the index for the food group of the retail prices index was about 0·4 per cent. below the corresponding figure for 13th May, 1958.

Sir A. Hurd: As this is the first year since the war that, on the whole, food prices in the shops have fallen, would my right hon. Friend tell us briefly which foods in particular have contributed to this result?

Hon. Members: Beer.

Mr. Macleod: I do not know whether hon. Members consider beer to be a food but I assure them that it is not included in this Index. Foods that have gone down over the year are potatoes, vegetables, fresh fruit and eggs which, on the whole, seem to be home-produced. Those that have gone up are butter, cheese and beef, a large proportion of which no doubt come from overseas.

Mrs. Mann: How much have the weights gone down?

Mr. Macleod: The weight of food in pre-packages, which is presumably what the hon. Lady means, does not come into this matter, because allowance for any change in weights is made every month when we take our soundings of the figures.

Wales

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Labour what variation has occurred in the total numbers of people unemployed in Wales between February and the latest convenient date for which figures are available; what is his estimate of the future trend of employment in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Between February and June, 1959, unemployment in Wales fell by just under 13,000 to a total of 32,367, i.e. a drop of 28 per cent. Industrial details for June are not yet available but the improvement between February and May this year, whilst partly seasonal, included a substantial decrease in a number of manufacturing industries, especially iron and steel. I have every reason to expect that Wales will continue to share in the economic expansion which is affecting unemployment, in addition to benefiting from a number of new projects in South Wales where most of the working population is concentrated.

Mr. Gower: To what extent has this very welcome change affected the more difficult areas in North-West and Southwest Wales?

Mr. Macleod: I would like my hon. Friend to put down a further Question, when I will cover that point. It remains true that in many areas, like North-West Wales, there are great difficulties unsolved which we must continue to try to solve.

Mr. Lee: What is the employment position in Wales as distinct from the unemployment position?

Mr. Macleod: Employment figures are always received a little later than the unemployment figures. They will be issued in a few days and I have every reason to believe that they will be extremely satisfactory.

Douglas Castle Colliery

Mr. Patrick Maitland: asked the Minister of Labour what arrangements he has with the nationalised industries to enable him to anticipate redundancies in their employment, for example, in the collieries; and when he expects the next phase of redundancies through closure at Douglas Castle Colliery in the County of Lanark.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Arrangements for informal consultation are made as required, with the co-operation of my right hon. Friends the Minister of Power and the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation. I understand that the next and final stage of closure at Douglas Castle Colliery is timed for September next.

Mr. Maitland: Does my right hon. Friend know, and can he tell us, how

many remaining workers at Douglas will be affected? Will he keep this matter constantly before his hon. and right hon. colleagues, so that something can be done to arrest the complete decline and ruination of this large area?

Mr. Macleod: On the question of numbers, 115 men are affected in total, but I do not know how many of them may yet be transferred to other employment. I will certainly keep in touch with my right hon. Friends on this matter.

Mr. Robens: These closures very often mean, as in the case of the hon. Member's constituency, the dereliction of a complete village. Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the President of the Board of Trade about alternative industries for many of the areas which, under the new National Coal Board plan, are likely to become derelict?

Mr. Macleod: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has emphasised that aspect of the matter, because the social effect of closures must be studied along with the economic effects.

Mr. Maitland: Will the right hon. Gentleman help me to get new industries established in Douglas?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE

Call-up

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the difficulties experienced by men awaiting call-up, owing to the fact that they are not informed immediately as to the actual date when they are expected to report for duty; what action he will take to remedy this; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Iain Macleod: In the closing stages of National Service delays in call-up cannot be avoided, but arrangements have recently been made so that a man can be given advance information when his medical examination and enlistment may be expected.

Mr. Dugdale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a constituent of mine was registered as long ago as 14th June, 1958. He had his medical examination in December last year, but still has no information and cannot find out where he has to go and what he has to do.

Mr. Macleod: I shall be glad to look into that special case. It is bound to happen in the closing stages that some people become available more quickly than the Service requires them; this sort of difficulty is bound to arise. I have sent out further instructions, dated 29th June, which I hope will get over the sort of difficulty to which the right hon. Gentleman has called my attention.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Nuclear-Powered Missile-Carrying Submarines

Mr. Wall: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty when it is intended to lay down a nuclear-powered missile-carrying submarine.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): It has never been the practice to disclose information of this sort.

Mr. Wall: Is my hon. Friend aware that his Answer is most disappointing? Could he not give the House some information or at least some reasons to justify his reply? Would he not agree that such a vessel may be of vital importance to the Royal Navy and to this country in the future?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: It would be unwise to reveal naval plans several years before the keel of a ship is laid down. Our submarine plans have always carried a higher degree of security even than that demanded for surface ships. I agree with my hon. Friend that this type of vessel will be of supreme importance in the future to our navy. That is one of the reasons why it would be unwise to give any information at this stage.

Mr. Paget: Has not the Parliamentary Secretary said something which is very important when he said "several years before the keel is laid down". Is it really to be several years before we consider laying the hulls of nuclear-powered submarines of this character?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I cannot give any information on this subject at this stage. I have stated the general principle of not announcing future naval plans. This has prevailed for many years, if not for all time, and it would be a mistake to depart from it at this juncture.

Motor Transport Depot (Newcastle-under-Lyme)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will now make a further statement about the future of Clayton motor transport depot in Newcastle-under-Lyme.

The Civil Lord to the Admiralty (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): In accordance with an undertaking given to the local authorities and in order to save overheads, the motor transport depot at Clayton, together with its satellites, is being transferred to the Royal Naval Armament Depot, Minworth. The existing premises will be vacated at the end of this year.

Mr. Swingler: Could the Civil Lord be a bit more forthcoming? Will it be possible now to announce to those who are employed at this depot a clear plan as to their future? They have been in a state of uncertainty for months, knowing that this depot would be closed. Is it not possible now to say how many men will remain redundant and what offers of other employment will be available to them?

Mr. Galbraith: I shall certainly look into the possibility of doing that, but in general terms the rundown will start at the end of July and finish by the middle of December.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why workers at Clayton motor transport depot, Newcastle-under-Lyme, have been told that they can have only one week's paid holiday this year.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: Admiralty workpeople are entitled to at least two weeks' paid leave for a full year's service. This leave is earned gradually throughout the twelve months, and some of the workpeople at Clayton will not be employed by us long enough to earn the Ml amount. They will, therefore, be allowed to take only part of their holiday as paid leave and the rest as unpaid leave, if they require it. If at the end of their employment they are found to have earned more leave with pay, they will then be paid for it.

Mr. Swingler: Will the hon. Gentleman look carefully at this matter and give an assurance that the Admiralty will not work out its redundancy plan for these workers at Clayton in such a fashion as deliberately to do some of them out of


holidays 1o which otherwise they would be entitled? Will he therefore examine the plan very carefully?

Mr. Galbraith: I shall certainly look into it, but I do not believe the suggestion made by the hon. Member was ever in the mind of the Admiralty.

South Wales Ports (Ships' Visits)

Mr. Gower: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why, in view of the fact that numbers of Her Majesty's ships visited all the South Wales ports during the summer of 1958, only the port of Barry has been omitted from the South Wales ports to be visited in 1959; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The demand from numerous home ports for visits by Her Majesty's ships unfortunately cannot always be satisfied and our aim is to provide a fair share of visits over the country as a whole.
Of the South Wales ports, we had to omit Tenby last year and Barry this year. Barry was omitted from the programme of visits planned for this year because the port has been visited every year since 1953 and, in fact, three separate visits were paid last year.

Mr. Gower: In future when arranging visits will my hon. Friend take account of the fact that in each of the last ten years the town, the council and people of Barry have made very special arrangements for visits of Her Majesty's ships and for the entertainment of their companies? On each occasion they have organised a special marine festival. Does my hon. Friend agree that this probably has been something more than has been arranged in many other places?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: All I would say is that I know our ships' companies have very much enjoyed visits to Barry and, should extra ships become available, we shall see whether Barry can be included.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that Barry, Cardiff and other South Wales ports need not just an occasional visit but a resumption of the part those ports played in the shipping of this country before the war?

Mr. G. Thomas: While in no way trying to compete with the parochial interests of the hon. Member who represents my neighbouring constituency of Barry (Mr. Gower), may I ask if the

hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that Barry is quite unable to offer what the City of Cardiff offers?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am very glad to find the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) supporting the principle of competition in entertaining ships' companies.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Territorial Army (William Firth)

Mr. Paget: asked the Secretary of State for War the circumstances in which William Firth was dismissed from the Territorial Army.

The Under-Secretary of State and Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Hugh Fraser): There is a regulation that beards may not be worn in the Army and this applies to the Territorial Army during annual camps. Mr. Firth was discharged for refusing to comply.

Mr. Paget: Who makes these regulations—Moses? Whilst it might be quite reasonable for a Regular soldier, surely it is an absurd piece of bureaucracy to require a Territorial to alter his facial arrangements for a fortnight's camp?

Mr. Fraser: The hon. and learned Member naturally shows a Royal Navy predisposition for beards, but I might point out that in his Service they are not allowed to wear moustaches unless they wear beards. Territorial Army soldiers like to be as smart on these parades as the rest of the Army.

Helicopters

Mr. Wigg: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement on the future of the Joint Experimental Helicopter Unit.

Mr. H. Fraser: The unit will continue its present work until the end of this year. No decision has been made beyond that.

Mr. Wigg: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to say when that decision was taken because, as recently as a few weeks ago, this unit had been informed that as from September it would cease to exist in its present form? If the policy has been reconsidered and there has been a change of heart, that is very welcome news.

Mr. Fraser: There is no change of policy. It was agreed a year ago that there would be a year's extension.

Mr. Wigg: Are we to take it that the situation now is that this unit will continue for at least another year?

Mr. Fraser: No, Sir. As I explained in my Answer, unless there is a decision to keep this unit in being it will close at the end of this year.

Mr. Wigg: In that case, will the hon. Gentlemen be good enough to say what considerations have caused this experimental unit to be wound up when every other army in the world it paying increasing interest to the use of helicopters?

Mr. Fraser: As the hon. Member knows, this unit has been used for experimental tactical purposes. It started four years ago and the question arises whether it has come out of the realm of the tactical experimental stage into the tactical application stage.

Mr. Wigg: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that at the earliest opportunity I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Wigg: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement on the future use of helicopters by the Army.

Mr. H. Fraser: Helicopters of the Royal Air Force and the Army Air Corps will be used increasingly in support of the Army in the field. Their tasks will include the carriage of troops, supplies and equipment, casualty evacuation, reconnaissance and liaison in forward areas.

Mr. Wigg: Is it not a fact that, in view of the Army's present policy of limiting helicopters to a 4,000 1b. weight, the Army has to fit two men according to their size? If it has a fat man it has to put him in with a thin man or they cannot manage their rifles. Does not this indicate that the Government are pursuing a fantastic policy, for which they are not prepared to ask the country to pay?

Mr. Fraser: With respect, it is not a fantastic policy in the least. The policy was clearly laid down by the Minister

of Defence the other day. There must be a limit between Army responsibilities and the responsibility of the Royal Air Force which is equipped to deal with heavier machines.

Mr. Wigg: The fact is that the Russians certainly have hundreds or even thousands of helicopters and we have about half a dozen. Is the Financial Secretary prepared to reconsider this policy which limits Army helicopters to 4,000 1b. weight with all the consequences which flow from that?

Mr. Fraser: As was explained by my right hon. Friend the other day, there is no permanent "Plimsol line". As these helicopters get bigger, the size will go up. It is purely an administrative matter.

Mr. Shinwell: As a matter of interest, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how many helicopters the Army uses?

Mr. Fraser: The Army is well equipped at the moment with small Skeeter reconnaissance helicopters.

Mr. Shinwell: Will they be of any value in the field?

Mr. Fraser: Yes, Sir. They are of great value for reconnaissance and liaison.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

School of Infantry

Mr. Wigg: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is satisfied that the School of Infantry has sufficient supplies of modern equipment to enable adequate study of modern tactical and strategic problems to be carried out; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. H. Fraser: Yes, Sir. The most modern weapons and equipment in service are at the school's disposal. Prototypes are tested there and the school is consulted at all stages of research and development.

Mr. Wigg: Will the hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that all members of the staff of the School of Infantry are satisfied with the equipment which is available?

Mr. Fraser: As I see it, in this instance enough is never enough, but what is quite clear is that the staff has the best equipment that we have available. I think one of the reasons why the hon. Member is asking this Question is that he went to a demonstration the other day when a great many things on the secret list were not shown, not because he was present, but because there were many foreign attachés from beyond the Iron Curtain present.

Mr. Wigg: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Colchester (Military Detention Centre)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War what protests he has received from Colchester about his proposal to transfer military prisoners from Shepton Mallet to the prison there; and what has been the nature of his reply.

Mr. H. Fraser: My right hon. Friend has written in answer to an inquiry by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport), to say that we are considering an extension of Berechurch Camp, Colchester, to house those soldiers undergoing long terms of detention who are now kept at Shepton Mallet. This transfer would not apply to men serving sentences of imprisonment—as distinct from detention—whom it is hoped will be confined in civil prisons when the Army tenure of Shepton Mallet expires.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Would the Minister tell us something of the nature of the protests which he has received from the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations? Is it in accordance with the principle of Governmental collective responsibility for one Minister to complain to another in this way? Is he aware that there are eight Scottish soldiers serving in Shepton Mallet who do not want to go to Colchester? They want to go home.

Mr. Fraser: Clearly the hon. Member belongs to so many different nationalities that he comes under the office of the Minister for Commonwealth Relations. I am sure that the Minister will be extremely grateful to the hon. Member for having raised this question. If the

people of Colchester are worried it can be said that if we proceed with this plan there are two aspects which should reassure them. First, the real criminals, the men who have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment, will not be sent there. They will be sent to civil prisons. Secondly, long-term detainees who are due to be discharged from the Army will be kept in a separate wing under conditions of special security. They will be separate from the short-sentence detainees, who will be kept in the Military Corrective Training Establishment, as at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Advertisements

Mr. Cronin: asked the Postmaster-General, in view of the adverse report of the Medical Panel of the Advertising Inquiry Committee on Press and Television Advertising on the advertisements on television of medical preparations and such items as toothpaste and slimming courses, what consultations have taken place under Section 4 (5) of the Television Act, 1954, between the Independent Television Authority and himself regarding such advertisements.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ernest Marples): Consultations take place from time to time with the Authority about classes of goods and services which must not be advertised and methods of advertising which must not be employed. I agreed in March last an amendment to the rules about products or treatments for slimming. The report referred to by the hon. Member makes no specific criticism of contravention of television advertisement rules or of the rules them-selves.

Mr. Cronin: Is there not some evidence that some television viewers are being seriously imposed upon by some television advertisements? Has not the right hon. Gentleman adequate powers under the Television Act to put a stop to it?

Mr. Marples: If the hon. Member thinks that any specific advertisement falls within the category of his supplementary question, I should be grateful if he would tell me what it is, and I will look into it.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not some of the trouble due to the fact that the meetings of the medical panel and the full committee are so infrequent that the decisions of the medical panel are sometimes not considered until months after they have been taken? In this difficult matter of determining whether claims are false or otherwise, ought not the machinery to be speeded up?

Mr. Marples: I do not think so. If any hon. Member puts forward a complaint to me it will be looked into straight away.

Political Broadcasts

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Postmaster-General if he will seek to amend the Licence and Agreement with the British Broadcasting Corporation, and the Television Act, 1954, in order to provide that when statements have been made on talks or political broadcasts which are subsequently found to be inaccurate the first possible opportunity must be taken to correct the error and such correction must be repeated at least twice.

Mr. Marples: No, Sir.

Mr. Johnson: Does not my right hon. Friend think it very serious if misstatements are put out over a wide television network and are not corrected? Would he at least try to arrange that the B.B.C. and I.T.A. make transcripts of all the previous day's spoken transmissions and that these transcripts are supplied on the following day and made available in the Library for hon. Members to check?

Mr. Marples: That would be a heavy commitment for the B.B.C. and I.T.A. to undertake. It also raises the question of what is a misstatement. There are many views about it. Many misstatements are of a trivial nature. Those which are of a serious nature become news, and I think they are corrected almost immediately both in broadcasting and in the Press.

"The Week's Good Cause" (Appeals)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Postmaster-General if he will use his powers under Section 15 (4) of the Licence and Agreement to require the British Broadcasting Corporation to refrain from sending on

23rd August a programme entitled, "The Week's Good Cause", in which an appeal is to be made by the Bishop of Southwark on behalf of the Family Planning Association, in view of the controversy aroused in Christian circles by the subject of birth control and the resentment which will be caused to many of them in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Marples: No, Sir. I do not think it appropriate to use the powers of direction under Clause 15 (4) of the Licence and Agreement, as suggested by my hon. Friend. I think we should do well to leave this matter to the Governors of the B.B.C. who in this sphere have the help of their Appeals Advisory Committees.

Mr. Teeling: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the main object of my asking the Question is to see that this appeal should not be made on "The Week's Good Cause," as the Family Planning Association, which used to be called the Birth Control Association, is a very controversial body and definitely advises that married women should go in for contraception and birth control without the knowledge or permission of their husbands? Would it not be wiser for this to be debated? Could it not be dealt with as a debatable subject so that it could be answered? Is he further aware that Sir Ian Jacob told me that the questions of birth control and contra- ception would not be brought up? If that is so, is not the Bishop of Southwark making an appeal for money under false pretences and—?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Marples: It is for the B.B.C. to decide. The B.B.C. has informed me that in allowing it several factors were taken into account. First, the B.B.C. Appeals Advisory Committee raised no objection. Secondly, local authorities, the regional hospital boards, doctors and others send cases to the Family Planning Association. Thirdly, the Family Planning Association is not concerned only with birth control; in fact, it helps married couples who find themselves sterile and wish to have children. In those circumstances, I do not think that I could possibly use the powers given under the Section.

Mrs. L. Jeger: Will the Minister also bear in mind that the Royal Commission on Population recommended that family


planning facilities should be a part of the National Health Service and that it is only in default of that having been instituted that these appeals for voluntary funds still have to be made? Will he remind his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) that the Lambeth Conference has given its blessing not only to family planning facilities, which this Association provides, but also to its compassionate and very Christian work in helping couples to have children who are otherwise unable to do so?

Mr. Marples: I should not like to enter into this controversy. I have given my Answer, which is a reasonable Answer in all the circumstances.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: asked the Postmaster-General what notice he has given to the British Broadcasting Corporation to refrain from including in "The Week's Good Cause" publicity for actions which large bodies of Christian opinion hold to be bad; and whether he will now give notice to the British Broadcasting Corporation to refrain from including in its "The Week's Good Cause" programme publicity for such controversial practices as euthanasia, abortion and birth control, or for persons or organisations advocating them.

Mr. Marples: None, Sir. On the second part of the Question, as I have already said in reply to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) I think that we should do well to leave matters such as these to the discretion of the Governors of the B.B.C.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: Will my right hon. Friend bear three points in mind? First, no amount of popularity makes a bad action good. Secondly, in this particular matter we are dealing with something highly controversial and the proposal that this should be broadcast in "The Week's Good Cause" means that the B.B.C. is declaring it to be good. Thirdly, there has been much misrepresentation about the Lambeth Conference resolutions, which should be studied together from 1908 onwards.

Mr. Marples: That may be so. I did not make that decision because it was a popular decision. I had no idea whether it was popular or unpopular. I made it because I considered it my duty on the evidence available. As to the Question on the Order Paper. I do not

know of any charitable organisation which would carry out such illegal practices as abortion, and so on. Therefore, it is not likely that an appeal would be asked for, and it is certainly unlikely that it would ever be allowed.

Mrs. Mann: On a point of order. Up to now, we have been assured at the Table that we cannot possibly put down a Question to the Postmaster-General on the programmes of the B.B.C. As recently as the controversy over the Scottish B.B.C. Orchestra, several hon. Members were turned away from the Table because the Postmaster-General had no responsibility. How do these Questions come to be on the Order Paper today?

Mr. Speaker: They are not asking about particular items in the programmes, which are the responsibility of the British Broadcasting Corporation. Question No. 33 was about certain powers which the Postmaster-General has under Section 15 of the Licence and Agreement. It all depends on how the Question is phrased and what it refers to.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Further to that point of order. A number of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have experienced difficulty in putting on the Order Paper Questions relating to particular items. This Question raises a very important item that is to appear in a B.B.C. programme. The right hon. Gentleman has accepted responsibility for answering it. It is rather strange that this Question has been allowed to come on to the Order Paper when so many others of a similar type have been refused.

Mr. Speaker: I admit that sometimes the borderline is rather difficult to see, but I think that this Question is in order. If an hon. Member has difficulty with a Question and is dissatisfied with its rejection, I am always very willing to see the hon. Member to try to explain the matter.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Further to that point of order. Are we to understand that, if an hon. Member asks the Postmaster-General what notice he has given to the B.B.C. about any particular programme, that will be in order?

Mr. Speaker: I should not like to give a general answer about all sorts of questions. This Question, I am told, is in order.

Mr. Dugdale: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said that it was not a specific case, but the Question specifically names a broadcast on 23rd August entitled "The Week's Good Cause". It seems to me to be definitely specific.

Mr. Speaker: One would have to consult the Licence and Agreement to ascertain exactly what powers the Postmaster-General has. I have not the Licence and Agreement with me. I do not carry it in my head. It may be that a Question can be framed with reference to it which is in order, whereas other general questions about programmes infringe upon the B.B.C.'s own responsibility.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Further to that point of order. You will notice that the Question is framed on the assumption that the Postmaster-General has given notice to the B.B.C. The Question says:
what notice he has given to the British Broadcasting Corporation
the assumption being that the right hon. Gentleman has given notice. Why is a Question which is drafted in this form, assuming something which has not taken place, allowed on the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker: If an hon. Member makes a statement of a fact or assumes a fact in his Question, he is responsible, not the Table.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: Further to that point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Postmaster-General what representations he has received concerning the programme, "The Week's Good Cause", which is proposed to be broadcast by the British Broadcasting Corporation on 23rd August; and what consideration he is giving to the use of his powers under Section 15 (4) of the Licence and Agreement to prohibit such programmes from being broadcast.

Mr. Marples: Up to 30th June I had received nine letters in favour of the broadcast taking place, one of which was signed by 28 people, and 41 letters against it.
In answer to the second part of the Question, I have already said in answer

to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) that I do not consider the use of the powers of direction under Clause 15 (4) of the B.B.C.'s Licence and Agreement appropriate.

Sir F. Medlicott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that every 300 days the population of the world is increasing by more than the total who were killed in both world wars and that the justification for this broadcast is that many people are gravely perturbed at the prospect of unlimited numbers of children being brought into a world which, even now, is unable to provide for millions of them enough food, shelter or clothing?

Mr. Marples: I did not carry those statistics in my head. The best thing I can do is to send the details of this to the B.B.C. and ask the B.B.C. if it will show them to the chairman of the Appeals Advisory Committee so that he will know the views of hon. Members.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Will the right hon. Gentleman refrain from becoming a party to sectarian pressures about a highly controversial matter? Will he, as usual, endeavour to keep himself completely above the battle?

Mr. Marples: That is exactly why I will not enter into the controversy and exactly why I refuse to do so. This is a matter for the B.B.C. If any hon. Members in any part of the House have any expression of opinion and wish to put it forward, it is for the B.B.C. and not for me to consider it.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is, I hope, the desire now on both sides of the House—may we convey this to some of the hon. Members who have asked these Questions—that we want them to show to people with other views the same tolerance as the House has shown to them?

Mr. Telling: On a point of order. The Postmaster-General has said that he has sent me some letters. I have received no letters from him, but I have received over 200 letters on this subject.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. This matter is to be raised on the Adjournment later.

Mr. Marples: I never said that I had sent any letters to my hon. Friend.

Lineage, Wavelengths and Colour Television

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Postmaster-General (1) when the Report of the Television Advisory Committee dealing with the problem of lineage, allocation of wavelengths, and colour will be published;

(2) if he will make available the Report of the Technical Sub-Committee that has been considering the questions of lineage and colour television.

Mr. Marples: The Technical Sub-Committee to which the right hon. Member refers is a sub-committee set up by my Television Advisory Committee to advise it on certain matters. It does not report to me. It is the Television Advisory Committee which will report to me. The form of its Report is a matter for it and I have already promised the House that I will place a copy in the Library.

Mr. Ness Edwards: As the previous Sub-Committee's Report was contained in the Television Advisory Committee's second Report which has been published as a White Paper, would it not be in the interests of securing a balanced view about what is to take place with regard to the change of lineage and colour that all that information should be before the House before the right hon. Gentleman forms any view about it?

Mr. Marples: If it is to be presented as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, we must wait for the main Committee's Report before both of them are published; but I must wait until the main Committee has reported.

International Radio Consultative Committee (Meeting)

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Postmaster-General what instructions were issued to the British delegation to the International Conference held in the United States of America to consider matters relating to television and sound transmissions.

Mr. Marples: I assume that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the recent meeting of the International Radio Consultative Committee at Los Angeles which discussed the question of common standards for television in Bands IV and V. The instructions to

the British delegation concerned channel spacing in these Bands and followed the advice given to me in the letter of 18th March from the Chairman of my Television Advisory Committee. My hon. Friend told the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) on 25th March last that a copy of this letter had been placed in the Library.

Mr. Ness Edwards: As I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has a Frequency Committee advising him, will he make available to the House such advice as has been obtained from the Frequency Committee?

Mr. Marples: A copy of the letter is already available in the Library.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Savings Bank (Unclaimed Balances)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Postmaster-General the total amount standing in unclaimed balances in Post Office Savings Bank accounts in which there have been no transactions for more than twenty years.

Mr. Marples: The amount is estimated to have been £5,770,000 at 1st January, 1959.

Mr. Allaun: As the balances are mostly in the names of depositors who died without relatives or heirs, would the Minister consider transferring them to the Exchequer, subject to reclaim at any later date? Does not this involve the even bigger question of the hundreds of millions of £s lying in the joint stock banks, the Big Five, which are using them for their own purposes? Is not the nation entitled to this money?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Postmaster-General is not responsible for the joint stock banks.

Mr. Marples: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. As you truly said, I am not responsible for the joint stock banks. Deposits in the savings bank cannot be diverted to some other purpose because that is precluded by the Post Office Savings Bank Act, 1954. Under that Act deposits must be held without limit of time subject to withdrawal at the demand of the depositor or other legally entitled person.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Automatic Exchange, Stoke-on-Trent

Mrs. Slater: asked the Postmaster-General when it is estimated that Stoke-on-Trent will have a new automatic exchange for trunk dialling.

Mr. Marples: During 1964–65, when we expect to complete the installation of a new exchange in a new building for which we are now acquiring a site.

Mrs. Slater: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a very long time away for a large city such as Stoke-on-Trent and for the area which this trunk dialling exchange would cover, which is the whole of North Staffordshire almost down as far as Stafford? Could he not bring the date forward to a much earlier date than 1964?

Mr. Marples: I am afraid not. Whenever we change equipment it is desirable that we should install subscribers' trunk dialling instead of the old automatic equipment. As we propose that almost 60 per cent. of the calls shall be subscriber trunk dialled in the next five years, it is a fairly good programme.

Charges

Mr. Watkins: asked the Postmaster-General (1) the charges which are asked of subscribers who live three miles or over from a telephone exchange; when these charges were fixed; how many times they have been reviewed since then; and what recommendations the Post Office Advisory Committee have made to reduce these charges;

(2) whether he has yet reviewed the charges which are made upon telephone subscribers who live three miles or over from a telephone exchange; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Marples: For exclusive lines, the present extra quarterly charge is 10s. for each furlong beyond three miles from the exchange; for shared lines the rate is 5s. per furlong. These charges were put before the House in July, 1957, and introduced on 1st October, 1957. The charges do not fully cover the costs of these long lines. On the other hand, I think it would be unreasonable to allow the whole of the extra costs to fall on telephone users generally.
Although the matter has been before the Post Office Advisory Council it has made no recommendation.

Mr. Watkins: Is the Postmaster-General aware that at the annual meeting of the Women's Institutes recently a resolution on the subject from Breconshire was unanimously carried? In view of such resolutions carried outside Parliament and representations which I have continually made, why cannot he has some regard to the need to reduce the charges, the size of which adds to rural depopulation?

Mr. Marples: Many resolutions are passed transferring the burden of charge from the persons passing the resolution to someone else. It would be difficult for the Post Office to meet all these charges. A survey was made of the cost of providing these lines in 1955 and it showed that the annual charges for maintenance, interest on capital and depreciation varied between £16 and £29 per mile. We charge only 10s. a furlong, which is not unreasonable.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Khormaksar, Aden (Accommodation)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware of the shortage of accommodation for Service families in transit through Royal Air Force, Khormaksar, Aden; and what he proposes to do in this matter.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Airey Neave): Civil charter aircraft carrying Service families on the Far East route do not call at Aden. The few families who are brought back by Comets of Transport Command which refuel at Khormaksar will be able to use the new transit centre which we plan to build at the airfield.

Mr. de Freitas: When the Under-Secretary says that it is planned to build a new transit centre, is he aware that I am referring to the existing conditions? Why have they been allowed to get so bad that Service families suffer in this way?

Mr. Neave: Virtually all Service families travelling to and from the Far East travel by civil charter aircraft and


do not call at Aden. The families we are talking about come mainly from Ceylon. I quite agree that the conditions at this transit centre are most unsatisfactory. We have been delayed in the building of the new transit centre by the construction of the new runway, but I hope that it will be completed by next year.

Low Flying, Stockton-on-Tees

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will discontinue low-level flying over Stockton-on-Tees, particularly at night time.

Mr. Neave: Aircraft landing at R.A.F. Middleton St. George must normally pass over Stockton at a height of 1,000 to 1,500 feet. I greatly regret the disturbance which this causes, but I cannot agree to stop the flying, which is a necessary part of operational training.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is it not possible to restrict the night flying, during which these planes fly at a very low level, between one and two o'clock in the morning, when they cause considerable annoyance to my hard-working constituents? As Middleton St. George is surrounded more or less by open country, why must these aircraft pass over Stockton to approach it? There is plenty of open space over which they could fly.

Mr. Neave: Some night flying is a necessary part of the operational training programme. I will look into this matter to see whether any relaxation is possible, but we are well aware of the noise problem and pilots are briefed to avoid creating disturbance over local towns as much as possible.

Mr. Slater: My hon. Friend was not correct in stating that Middleton St. George is an open area. It happens to be in my constituency. I want the same accommodation granted to the people of Middleton St. George as my hon. Friend asks for Stockton.

Ration Money, Aden

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will take steps to see that any future reductions in the rates of ration money for the Royal Air Force in Aden are not made retroactive.

Mr. Neave: Instructions now going out should ensure that the question of backdating does not in future arise.

Mrs. Castle: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for a reply which I find a little devious but which I assume to be in the affirmative, may I ask whether he will take steps to ensure that this same principle applies throughout the whole of the Royal Air Force Commands?

Mr. Neave: I think that my Answer would cover all R.A.F. Commands.

Officers (Recruitment)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will make a statement on the recruitment of General Duties and other officers.

Mr. Neave: Recruitment to the General Duties branch has improved during the last few months but more candidates are still needed. In most of the ground branches recruitment is reasonably satisfactory. We need, however, to increase entries into the Education, Secretarial and Dental branches, and into the R.A.F. Regiment. We also need many more W.R.A.F. officers.

Mr. de Freitas: Is not a great deal of the shortage of aircrew recruits due to the statements made by the Minister of Defence, which were responsible for parents and schoolmasters believing that there was no longer a flying career in the Royal Air Force? What is the Air Council doing to correct this impression?

Mr. Neave: We are studying the problem the whole time and we have recently strengthened our publicity organisation. What we need more than anything else is to get over to young men who wish to fly the excellent prospects and many attractions which a Service career has to offer.

Missiles

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Air what plans he has for exchanging British ground-to-air missiles for United States air-to-air missiles for the mutual benefit of the British and United States Services.

Mr. Neave: I have nothing to add to the Answer given to the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence of 17th June.

Mr. de Freitas: Has it not now become apparent that the British ground-to-air missiles are far superior to those of the United States and that it is at least possible that the American air-to-air missiles are superior to ours? If interdependence is to be anything but merely a word, would not this be a good place to start the exchange of equipment?

Mr. Neave: I see the point made by the hon. Member. He should, however, know that there is a steady exchange of information between the Americans and ourselves on the development of new weapons and that this is of great benefit. Whether from the knowledge thus derived it would be advantageous for one country to adopt a particular weapon being developed by the other is for that country to decide.

Training Area, Spaunton Moor (Accident)

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that during the weekend of 19th–21st June five children were injured by a live mortar bomb which they found in a moorland stream near Locksay Bridge, Hutton le Hole; whether he will investigate the causes of this incident; and what steps he is taking to secure that the north Yorkshire moors are cleared of such missiles.

Mr. Neave: The accident occurred in the old training area on Spaunton Moor, when a child appears to have found an unexploded bomb and to have thrown it into a stream, where it hit a rock. The area had been searched for explosives by a Royal Air Force bomb disposal unit eight years ago, and the missiles which were found were then removed. We have within the last few days carried out a further search in the area of the accident. No further dangerous objects were found.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to express my sympathy with the children who were injured, and with their parents.

Mr. Turton: May I ask whether my hon. Friend is aware of the great concern that is felt in this well-known holiday resort about this most unfortunate accident; that some years ago an adjoining piece of moor was set on fire

and a great number of these bombs were set off and exploded, and that, on the rest of the moor, shepherds are continually finding unexploded shells? In view of these facts, will my hon. Friend now order a more searching investigation to see that no bombs are left?

Mr. Neave: I am certainly very interested in what my right hon. Friend says. If he will send me full details of what has been found, I will look into the matter again and consider the position in the future. I ought to say that the search lasted a full twelve months and covered over 6,000 acres.

Mr. Popplewell: In how many acres of these north Yorkshire moors are there still dangerous unexploded bombs? We know that it is a fairly large acreage. Is the hon. Gentleman able to say?

Mr. Neave: I can only say that we have searched 6,000 acres. What my right hon. Friend has said about these weapons being found on other occasions is very important and, therefore, I ought to look at the matter further.

Oral Answers to Questions — SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (SPEECH)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister whether the speech by the Home Secretary, made at King's Lynn on 27th June, on the question of the hydrogen bomb, represented the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
Yes, Sir.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Home Secretary aware that we are very glad that he is more in accord with his Cabinet colleagues than he was at the time of Suez, when he said that we must be strong and be able to speak from an independent position? Is not that an argument that General de Gaulle, Nasser and a large number of other spokesmen of the nations could use for their possession of atomic weapons? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the world would be safer if a very large number of other people adopted the same arguments?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. Her Majesty's Government would not welcome the indiscriminate spreading of the capacity to produce nuclear weapons. We think that this can best be avoided through comprehensive disarmament.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will my right hon. Friend, any hon. Member opposite or anyone else tell us whether the recent joint declaration on the subject by the party opposite represents the policy of the Labour Party?

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR WARFARE

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if he will consider issuing a White Paper giving the estimates of possible loss of life in Great Britain in the event of nuclear war similar to the estimates of loss of life in the United States of America, just published by a sub-committee of the United States Congress, a copy of which has been sent to him.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
No, Sir. The number of people likely to be killed and injured would depend upon so many variable factors, such as the scale of the attack, the length of tactical warning received, the numbers able to take cover, and the weather and wind conditions, that no useful purpose would be served by publishing such estimates.

Mr. Hughes: If the Americans can publish an estimate in spite of all those different facts, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has read the report to the American Congress that an attack would kill 49 million people and injure another 20 million? Is it not necessary that the people of this country should know the truth about the dangers of atomic war in order to get rid of these

H-bomb weapons, whatever right hon. Gentlemen, on either side of the House, think about it?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. We are all equally clear on the desirability of getting rid of atomic weapons if we can. I must say, however, that the American report, which the hon. Member sent to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, covered by a very courteous letter to the Prime Minister, which I have read, was based, I gather, on a number of hypothetical conditions and assumptions which we cannot necessarily take as being accurate. I would not like to publish a similar estimate for this country in view of the considerations I have put forward.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will the Home Secretary consider publishing for the public in a cheap edition the manuals on nuclear, biological and chemical weapons which his Department has prepared for civil defence workers?

Mr. Butler: If the right hon. Gentleman would indicate to me those he has in mind, I will certainly look at them. We have made one or two publication' which, I think, have brought home to the public the undoubted danger of nuclear war. If the right hon. Gentleman cares to specify any other material that he would like to discuss, I will discuss it with him.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the highly unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I will attempt to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

NATIONAL ASSISTANCE [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to empower the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance to make orders increasing any of the amounts specified in paragraph 3 or 5 of the Second Schedule to the National Assistance Act, 1948, and making certain consequential provision, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in any sums payable out of moneys so provided which is attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session empowering the said Minister as aforesaid.

Resolution agreed to.

NATIONAL ASSISTANCE BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(POWER TO INCREASE CERTAIN DISREGARDS.)

3.31 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, to leave out from "Schedule" to the end of line 17.
As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance said in his winding-up speech on Second Reading, the Ministers responsible for the Legal Aid Acts are the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Scotland. The words which the Amendment proposes to omit provide that the regulation-making powers which at present reside in the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Scotland will be given to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance in consultation with the National Assistance Board.
The changes which are being made here will affect in some measure, albeit a small measure, the contribution made by people who are in receipt of legal aid. I think that in 1949 Members of Parliament expressed a little concern that the Ministers then responsible—the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Scotland—were even going to use the National Assistance Board as their instrument and to use the disregards that were set out in the National Assistance Act as the disregards to be

inserted in the Legal Aid Acts and the regulations made under the Legal Aid Acts. However, Parliament acquiesced in what was then done. But I think Ministers have to justify at this time taking away this regulation-making power from the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State and vesting it in the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance.
May I say, in passing, that I was interested to notice that the National Assistance Bill had to be reissued because the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been left out from among the supporters of the Bill in the first place. The Bill was, therefore, reissued with this small Amendment. But I found that even after the Amendment had been made, the Secretary of State for Scotland, whose 1949 Legal Aid Act is being amended by this Bill, and who is a member of the Cabinet, is still not among the supporters of the Bill, which is passing strange because he seems to me to have more responsibility for this matter and must have more responsibility for the administration of the Act than has the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): A sum of £32 million is involved.

Mr. Fraser: The Minister interjects to say that £32 million is involved. He heads the Ministers who introduced the Bill to the House. He does not find the £32 million. The Chancellor of the Exchequer does. The Chancellor obviously came in as an afterthought, but the Secretary of State for Scotland is not in yet.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps I may intervene to say that this is a point which I cleared up in the main debate on the regulations. I believe that the hon. Gentleman was not there. My right hon. Friend's name was on the Bill from the very beginning, but, owing to an error made by the authorities of the House, it was not included in the first print. That is all.

Mr. Fraser: The amount set out in the Legal Aid Acts that are most in need of Amendment—and this was brought out clearly in the debate in the House on 24th February—are the upper


and lower limits of disposable income. To change the amount of the disregards—and that is what is now proposed—is like leaving the National Assistance scales at the level at which they were in 1949 and merely altering the disregards. That is exactly the position. To make this Amendment is to alter the disregards without doing anything at all to alter those basic scales. The figures of £156 and £420 which were used in 1949 are totally out of date at the present time. In spite of what the Attorney- General said on 24th February—

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): On a point of Order, Sir Charles. May I ask for your guidance? The hon. Gentleman is now referring to the financial limits of the Legal Aid Scheme, which come nowhere within the Bill and are not affected by this Amendment. The Amendment does not touch on them at all. The limit above which legal aid is not available and the lower limit do not come into the scope of the Bill. All that is under consideration now is the Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman, to leave out from the Bill certain words which relate merely to bringing certain provisions of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, dealing with disregards, into line with changes that may be made as to disregards' by my right hon. Friend.
There is nothing in the Bill which has anything bearing on the financial limits of the Legal Aid Scheme, and, in my submission to you, Sir Charles—and I should like your guidance upon this point—it is out of order for us, on this narrow Amendment, to debate the scope, extent and application of the Legal Aid Scheme which was debated recently on a Supply Day.

Mr. Fraser: Before you give your Ruling, Sir Charles, may I submit to you that it is in the best traditions of the Committee that an hon. Member, in moving an Amendment, is given some freedom in showing why the Amendment should be considered by the Committee? My reason for asking the Committee to consider this Amendment is that the Legal Aid Acts need amendment and have been promised amendment, and that this Amendment seems to be a fitting one. I submit that what I was about to say would be in order.

What I was about to say would be in order—not what I had said.

The Chairman: We are not amending the Legal Aid Acts.

Mr. Fraser: Yes, we are, Sir Charles.

The Attorney-General: May I make my point clear, Sir Charles? You will have heard the hon. Gentleman, in his last sentence, admit that what he had just said was out of order, but that what he was going to say would be in order.

Mr. Fraser: No, I did not.

The Attorney-General: May I return to the point? This Bill refers to the Legal Aid and Advice Act. It refers to particular provisions in that Act dealing with disregards. Perhaps you will be good enough to read the words, Sir Charles:
… and if the said paragraph 5 "—
that is, in the Second Schedule of the National Assistance Act, 1948—
is for the time being reproduced in the Second Schedule to the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949, or to the Legal Aid and Solicitors (Scotland) Act. 1949, or, in pursuance of subsection (5) of section four of either of those Acts, in any regulations made under that section, any such order amending that paragraph"—
that is, the Order amending the paragraph of the Schedule in the National Assistance Act—
shall also amend that Schedule"—
that is, the Schedule in the Legal Aid Act—
or those regulations in the like manner.
All we are dealing with here is the intention to make the effect of an amendment of disregards under the National Assistance Act apply to the disregards under the Legal Aid and Advice Acts.
This being so, it is a very limited matter. It is not, in my submission, in order to discuss, as the hon. Gentleman was, the financial limits of the Legal Aid Scheme and the question whether those limits are right or wrong or to what extent they should be altered. A few moments ago, the hon. Gentleman referred to the upper limit in the existing scheme and said that criticism has been made of that. That may well be, but, in my submission, it is wholly out of order on this narrow Amendment.

The Chairman: Of course, the marginal note is not part of the Bill, but it is generally intended to make the matter clear to ordinary people. According to the marginal note, the only thing the Clause deals with is
Power to increase certain disregards".
That is, therefore, the scope of the Clause.

Mr. Fraser: I am obliged to you, Sir Charles, and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman now feels that he has been very properly put in his place. I had not discussed the upper limit or the lower limit. I had mentioned the upper and lower limits, but I had not discussed them. I think that I was not out of order in anything I had said, and I hope that I shall not be out of order in anything I shall say.
The Committee will be aware of all that was said on 24th February and will be aware of the Resolution then passed by the House, on the advice of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General. The House then, with its eyes open and with all the advice the Attorney-General could give, took the view that the financial arrangements in the administration of the Legal Aid Acts should be altered as soon as circumstances permitted. I think that I am entitled to ask whether this is the alteration then promised. Is this the alteration promised on 24th February? If it is, it is a rather poor and fiddling little alteration.
The real hardship is caused to litigants or would-be litigants, poor people who are denied the opportunity of litigation because of other weaknesses, the other limits which we cannot discuss at the present time. It seems to me, none the less, that Ministers, in amending the Legal Aid Acts—particularly the Ministers responsible for them—should use the appropriate instrument to alter the Acts in toto rather than alter the disregards while leaving the basic scales untouched.
Will the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland tell me whether he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are satisfied with this alteration of the Legal Aid and Solicitors (Scotland) Act, 1949. Is his right hon. Friend content to advise Parliament at this time to take from him, the Secretary of State for Scotland, a regulation-making power to

govern the administration of legal aid in Scotland and vest that regulation-making power in the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance?

Mr. George Chetwynd: I do not think that we can discuss the effect of these disregards unless we relate them, however briefly, to the main Section of the original Act, the disposal of income Section. As the law now stands, there is a free limit up to £156, and then there is a graduated payment up to a maximum limit of £420, and the man who is assessed for charges pays half the difference calculated on the basis of his disposable income. This has been the subject of complaint from time to time. Last February, we were promised that, when circumstances permitted, there would be modifications.
3.45 p.m.
This is the first time that we have been told by the Government that people on National Assistance are to be allowed to have a greater share in national prosperity, and it is my contention that the same should apply to those who are being assessed for contributions towards legal aid. The National Assistance Board is the machine through which the assessment is made. I should have thought, therefore, that we could make passing reference to the main purpose of the Assistance Board in assessing scales and then judge against that just how far the disregards were to be taken into account. That was my main purpose.
If you refer to Clause 1, Sir Charles, you will see, in line 10, the words "for the time being", and again, in the following line, the words, "for the time being" appear. What we really want to know is this. We are amending by this means the Legal Aid and Advice Act itself, for the time being. Are we to anticipate, therefore, that, very soon, there will be an actual amendment of the Act, or a reintroduction of the Act itself to amend the main scales? Otherwise, what is the point of putting in "for the time being"? Those words, to my mind, presuppose that there will, very soon, be a major change in the Act itself.
I come now to the point at issue on the disregards. I understand that the Assistance Board, according to its last Report, made 32,000 assessments in the relevant period. Of those, roughly 29 per cent. resulted in no contribution at


all, 54 per cent. of applicants were assessed on a graduated scale, and 16 per cent. of the applicants were excluded completely from assistance, principally because of the £420 upper limit. The £420 upper limit has a value of only £280 today and, if it is to have the real value we intended it to have in 1949, it ought to be £650.
I take it that the actual disregards in question at present are the 10s. 6d. a week from friendly societies, trade unions, etc., and the 10s. 6d. a week from any superannuation or pension payments. As I understand it, they are to be raised to 15s. In future, instead of 10s. 6d. being disregarded in these cases, the amount will be 15s. We put down the Amendment to give the Minister an opportunity of explaining how these different disregards will benefit an applicant in the future.
Exactly what will be involved in these changes? In her winding-up speech on 24th June, the hon. Lady the Joint Parliamentary Secretary dealt with the position on the increase in the children's scale. May we be told exactly how it will work: out in practice?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Edith Pitt): The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Edith Pitt) indicated dissent.

Mr. Chetwynd: I see the hon. Lady shaking her head, but she did deal with it, perhaps very vaguely, and her words are reported in c. 1327. Because that was so vague and did not give us very much information, I am asking now that the Government should say exactly how the disregards will work.
I have in mind cases where an assessment has already been made and someone has been excluded because his disposable income is too high or he has, perhaps, been assessed on the fifty-fifty basis at a certain figure and payments are being made. Will such cases be automatically reconsidered by the Assistance Board and a reduction given? Can people who fall outside the scope of legal aid now be brought in? Are the new scales to work only in respect of applications after the appointed day?
I have in mind a case which I have mentioned on a number of occasions, which concerns a man in receipt of sickness benefit and unemployability supplement

who is being charged 10 guineas for a legal aid case and who is paying at the rate of 17s. 6d. a month. It seems to me that these disregards may make a slight difference in his case. Will cases which have previously been assessed now be brought within the scope of the scheme so that such people may have benefit from it? In other words, can the benefits be made retrospective for existing cases?
That is the main point which I want to raise. If we could have a better explanation as to how the scheme will work, then I think that the Amendment will have served its purpose.

The Attorney-General: In replying to the debate, I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the scope of the Bill. The Bill starts off by giving the Minister power by regulation to amend paragraph 3 or 5 of the Second Schedule to the National Assistance Act, 1948. That is a Schedule which states that here will be certain disregards in dealing with applications for National Assistance. When the Legal Aid and Advice Act was passed in 1949, Section 4 embodied word for word the same paragraph of the Second Schedule of the National Assistance Act.
Under the Legal Aid and Advice Act it was required to be set out for the guidance of those who had to operate it in regulations made under the Legal Aid and Advice Act. Paragraph 5 appeared in four places, namely, in the National Assistance Act, the Legal Aid and Advice Act, the Legal Aid and Advice (Scotland) Act and in regulations made under those two last Acts.

Mr. Joseph Slater: Five.

The Attorney-General: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Five is the correct figure.
The Committee should realise that all that the latter part of the Bill seeks to do is to ensure that the disregards for legal aid assessments shall keep in line with the disregards for National Assistance. If the Amendment were carried, the effect of it would be disastrous, because the National Assistance disregards would be raised by Order or by Statutory Instrument put before the House by the Minister and the disregards for legal aid assessments would be left where they were.
The provision which the hon. Gentleman seeks to leave out ensures that that does not happen and that, whatever changes upwards are made in the disregards for National Assistance for the purpose of assessing National Assistance, there shall be the same disregards as there has always been up to now for the purpose of legal aid assessments.
That is all the Bill does in relation to legal aid assessments. It is obviously desirable that it should do that. If the Bill did not link this particular feature of legal aid with National Assistance, it would mean separate legislation to amend the disregards, because there is no power to amend the Legal Aid Act in this respect by Statutory Instrument. I hope that the Committee will agree with me when I say that there is no case at all for the acceptance of the Amendment.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether this was the alteration which was promised on 24th February, when we discussed the Legal Aid Schemes and when I moved an Amendment which was endorsed by the House and which read as follows:
endorses the introduction by Her Majesty's Government of a scheme for oral legal advice; welcomes the announcement of the intention of Her Majesty's Government to implement the provisions of Sections 21 to 23 of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949, relating to legal aid in criminal courts, and the provisions of Section 5, relating to legal aid in matters not involving litigation; and recognises that it is desirable to modify the financial provisions of the Legal Aid Scheme when circumstances permit.
I do not depart one iota from the words of that Amendment. There is a strong case for altering the financial limits "when circumstances permit", but that is not under discussion today.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this provision in the Bill, for the reasons which I have given, is not put forward as an implementation of what was said on 24th February. It is purely a machinery provision which I hope I have now been able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman is desirable. It will operate when regulations are made increasing the disregards for National Assistance. It will obviously automatically operate when regulations are made which affect the position of those who have applied for legal aid.

Mr. Chetwynd: Will it apply to existing cases?

The Attorney-General: I will deal with that point in a moment. The hon. Gentleman knows that applications for legal aid are frequently reviewed under a change of circumstances. I have had many cases brought to my attention where, on further investigation, it is shown that, owing to non-disclosure of a material fact by an applicant or a mistake being made in some of the figures, too high an assessment has been made, and that will be varied. Similarly, I apprehend that when the disregards are increased it will be possible to get the assessments adjusted. I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's point about existing cases positively, because one does not know the state that a case will be in when the regulations come into effect. I am not trying to evade the hon. Gentleman's question. I am trying to answer it, but I cannot give an answer—

Mr. Chetwynd: Usually, people pay so much a month towards the assessment. Regardless of what has happened in the case of past payments, will it be possible to review future cases?

The Attorney-General: A review can always take place, as is the case at present. I do not think that there will be any difficulty about this. An existing case might have finished before the regulations come into force. I cannot give a positive answer to the hon. Gentle- man, for, as he knows, assessments are reviewed from time to time when there is a change of circumstances, and if the disregards are increased while the case is being dealt with that would be a change of circumstances.
I hope that I have dealt satisfactorily with the point which has been raised, but again I do not think that it really arises under the Amendment. However, I am glad to have had the opportunity of answering it.

Mr. Tom Brown: I am not anxious to continue the discussion on this Amendment, but I think that we are all anxious to be of assistance to the old people and to those on National Assistance in helping them to understand the meaning of the Bill. Being so anxious, we should have a little more clarification from the Attorney-General.
May I call the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to paragraph 7 of


the White Paper, "Improvements in National Assistance"? Under the heading "Capital and Income Disregards", it is stated:
Any Order made under the power which is being sought to increase the amounts of resources disregarded under the National Assistance Act will also make corresponding increases for the purpose of the disregards to be applied in deciding applications for legal aid, in so far as these are governed by the National Assistance Act.
In practically 99 per cent. of the disregards the amount is stated, but in the case of an applicant for legal aid the amount is not stated.
The question which I want to ask the Attorney-General is this: will the disregards applicable to an applicant who makes application for legal aid be the same as the other disregards mentioned in the White Paper? That is a very important point. If the Attorney-General can answer it, it will assist considerably old people who have had the misfortune to have to apply for legal aid in understanding their exact position.

4.0 p.m.

The Attorney-General: The disregards that come under paragraph (5) of the Second Schedule of the National Assistance Act will be the same as the disregards that are given for legal aid assessments. This provision is intended to ensure, and does ensure, that there will be the same disregards for both. No matter what changes are made under National Assistance, the amount of the disregards under that part of the National Assistance Act will also be applied with regard to legal aid.

Mr. T. Fraser: I wonder whether the learned Attorney-General would turn his mind to another question, relating to the position of the person who got his legal aid certificate, had his assessment and then, perhaps three months—

The Attorney-General: That is not in order.

Mr. Fraser: The learned Attorney-General seems to be electing himself Chairman of this Committee. He tells me that I am out of order. The question asked was about the person whose assessment has now been made, with contributions to be paid over twelve months. If there is, say, six or nine months still to run, can that assessment

be looked at again in the context of regulations, when made?

The Attorney-General: If the hon. Gentleman had listened he would have heard me answer the question asked by his hon. Friend and, I think, to that hon. Gentleman's satisfaction. I answered at some length, and the answer was "Yes".

Mr. Fraser: I am grateful. If the Attorney-General says that he answered it, and that the answer was "Yes", I withdraw what I said, and apologise. I thought that in his previous answer he was concerned with the case where an application had been made but no decision had been reached. However, I accept that reply.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman also said something that showed that he has been reviewing cases that have been sent to him. He said that he found that sometimes the assessment was too high because some material figure had not been disclosed; that this had been brought out after he himself had considered the case, that an adjustment had been made and the contribution reduced.
I think that I have all the right hon. and learned Gentleman's supporters with me in that, so I want to tell them that on 22nd June the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland wrote to me about a case, saying:
The Secretary of State has no power to review the Board's decision and I am sure you will appreciate that it would not be proper for me to comment on how they had reached it in any particular case.
I had written about a constituent who was asked for a contribution of £1 a week for the next twelve months. This constituent could not afford £1 a week out of a wage of less than £8, and with a rent of 20s. or 30s. a week. Because he could not make the contribution, his wife, who was the litigant, found that the doors of the court were closed to her—this poor woman who was making a claim for damages, and had a legal aid certificate. She will never be able to use her hand again.
The Joint Under-Secretary wrote that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no power to review the Board's decision, but if he has no power to do what the learned Attorney-General said that he has done—

The Attorney-General: The Attorney-General rose—

Mr. Fraser: The right hon. and learned Gentleman can get up only when I sit down. I am perfectly willing to give way, but he must learn to show a little courtesy, instead of just pushing in and trying to browbeat. I give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman did not catch correctly what I said. I have no power to review the decision of the National Assistance Board, and never said that I had. I cannot review those cases. It is not within my power, nor is it within the function of the Secretary of State for Scotland. However, hon. Members do write, quite naturally, drawing my attention to particular cases—as, in Scotland, no doubt, they do to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I then bring the facts of those cases to the attention of the Board. All I was saying was that in some of the cases brought to my attention, and which I have referred to the National Assistance Board, the disclosure of new facts has led to a revision of the assessment.
If the hon. Gentleman heard that part of my answer, I really do not understand why he did not hear the other part, when I said that assessments are changed from time to time as circumstances alter, and also in the light of fresh discoveries as to relevant facts. And I really do not know why the hon. Gentleman should get so annoyed when I try to correct him on that. I have no power, and never have had any power at all, to review assessments made by the National Assistance Board. I hope that I have made that clear to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Fraser: Yes, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made that clear to me, but he did not do so in his original speech. What I am trying to make clear to him is that when the Joint Under-Secretary had from me the kind of complaint that the Attorney-General has had from other hon. Gentlemen, the Under-Secretary has written to tell me that he has not the power to take the action that the Attorney-General has taken. I leave it to the Under-Secretary. He has not referred this case—or, if he has, he has not told me—to the National Assistance Board. He has told me, politely but quite clearly, that when the Board makes up its mind it makes up its mind,

and that he has no responsibility for making any assessment.
I do not want to continue this discussion unnecessarily. I think that I raised a reasonable point on this Amendment, and I also think that it is quite clear that a function that did previously lie with the Lord Chancellor and with the Secretary of State is being so altered as to take from the Secretary of State the power to make regulations to amend a Scottish Act, and that that power is being vested in the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. George Lawson: This Clause deals with the disregards. We welcome the fact that the disregards are being raised, but I should like to know to what extent that will affect the amount of money a person is allowed to spend out of savings. I cannot recall this having been mentioned at all, but it recalls rather vividly to my mind a case brought to my notice of a man who had not reached retiring age but who was so badly crippled with arthritis that he was no longer able to work. He had saved a little money, and was making desperate efforts to make himself again fit for work. To do that, he was spending some of the money he had saved on special treatment that he could not get from the National Health Service—I neither praise nor condemn that.
The local National Assistance office put a very strict limit on the amount of the man's own savings that he would be permitted to spend, and regularly scrutinised his savings book to see that he was not spending more than the sum laid down. This was his own money that he had saved. He told me that on two occasions his National Assistance money had been docked because he had spent rather more than the permitted amount. On one occasion he had spent a little money, not on buying his wife a new coat—he could not rise to that—but on having his wife's coat cleaned and repaired. Because of this additional expenditure his National Assistance money was docked. I must say that immediately I intervened with the local manager that decision to reduce his National Assistance money was wiped out


and he was paid the money he had been previously paid.
I do not know whether or not there is a rule—and it is this I want to have cleared up—which lays down that if a person has a certain amount of savings, which is disregarded, he shall be permitted to spend only a certain amount of that money. Is there a rule which says that? Is this treated in this way? Is it that he is allowed to spend 10s. 6d. or 15s.? Or is this a matter for local decision? It would certainly seem to me that if this practice is engaged in in some parts of the country—and I know that it is or has been engaged in in my own constituency—there should be some uniform method of dealing with this.
The case I have mentioned was that of a very genuine person making a really desperate effort to get himself into a fit condition again for working, and who had to suffer what we have so often been told it is very much against the policy of this Committee a person should suffer, namely, the humiliation of being told that he was not permitted to spend what was a matter of almost a few shillings, or else the money he had been receiving from the National Assistance Board would be reduced.
Is there or will there be a rule which says that a person who has a certain sum of money saved, and is drawing upon that money to supplement National Assistance money he is receiving, will be permitted to draw a certain sum only per week? Or is this a matter which is left for the local manager or the local officials? It certainly seems to me that this is a matter which requires clarification, and I should like to hear what the position is.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: In the White Paper the Minister has been good enough to give the Committee a preview of the changes in the disregards which he proposes to make when the Bill becomes law. I am not sure whether it will be permissible in this debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," to comment on the use which the Minister proposes to make of these powers when he gets them. If it is I should like to suggest to him that while there is still time to consider the actual changes in the disregards he

should consider whether they go far enough.
The 10s. 6d., for example, from vocational pension schemes which is in the existing disregards and which he proposes to amend to 15s. seems a small increase when looked at in the ratio between the 10s. 6d. as it originally was and still is and the maximum amount of Assistance which could be granted to a married couple in 1948. The 10s. 6d. then was about one-quarter of the maximum Assistance given to a married couple. Under the proposals which the Minister has outlined in the White Paper. 15s. will be nearer one-sixth of the total amount which may be granted to a married couple.
The point I am making is that the ratio in 1948 between the disregards and the standard rate of Assistance will be less favourable in future than it was in 1948. For instance, consider the amount of 20s. of war disability or industrial injury disablement pension which is in the existing disregards and which he proposes to make 30s. In 1948, the disregard of war disability pension could be one-half approximately of the standard rate of Assistance. When the Minister has increased the 20s. to 30s. that disregard will in future be no more than one-third. There, again, there is an unfavourable disturbance of the ratio between the disregards and the standard rate of Assistance in 1948.
4.15 p.m.
Throughout all the discussions on the payment of post-war credits we were assured that post-war credit repayments would not be taken into account for the purpose of assessing National Assistance. Looking at the Second Schedule to the 1948 Act I saw there, in paragraph 7 (4), what is laid down for the reckoning of post-war credits under National Assistance, and it seems to me that there is no legal sanction for a complete disregard.
Paragraps 7 (4) of the Second Schedule provides that the amount of post-war credits repaid shall be counted as part of war savings. That seems to mean that if a recipient of National Assistance already has the full exemption for war savings then the post-war credit repayment would be reckonable for National Assistance. That seems to me to be the


interpretation of the Second Schedule to the 1948 Act.
I rather thought that the Minister had given one of those things which are frequently described as extra statutory concessions. It may be he is so doing. I have no case to bring to his attention where any person has claimed that a post-war credit has been reckonable for National Assistance because he already had the maximum exemption for war savings.
However, I think that before we part with this Clause it is well that the Minister should be satisfied that he has no need to extend the scope of the amendments to the Second Schedule which are provided here. He restricts the powers which he seeks to amending the amounts of the disregards in paragraphs 3 to 5 inclusive of the Second Schedule to the 1948 Act, which excludes paragraph 2 which deals with war savings. He is not proposing to take power to increase the maximum amount of war savings which the recipient of National Assistance may have without worsening the amount of his National Assistance.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. James H. Hoy): I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member, but I would just remind him and the Committee that, before this can be done, we shall have a Statutory Instrument brought before the House. That will be debatable then, so I do not think that we should let this matter go too wide now.

Mr. Houghton: I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Hoy. You have been so generous to me that the point you have now raised relates to my previous remarks, not to what I am saying now.
What I am saying now is that the Clause is probably not wide enough to deal with this point. Nothing the Minister can produce in Statutory Instruments under this Clause can touch the point to which I am referring at the moment as long as the Clause is limited to paragraphs 3 to 5 inclusive of the Second Schedule to the 1948 Act.
I have finished what I had to say. I have drawn the Minister's attention to this. If he can assure the Committee that no difficulties will arise on this matter and that there is no need to do anything about paragraph 2 of the

Second Schedule, I am sure that the Committee will be satisfied, but I think that we should be upset if, after the assurances we were given on earlier legislation, we were to let this point go, when considering a Clause which gives power to make concessions, and later found, to our dismay, that persons were placed at a disadvantage in claiming National Assistance because their postwar credit repayments took them over the limit of war savings specified in the Second Schedule to the 1948 Act as it stands now.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: The case which my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has just made out for further increases in the disregards is made stronger if it is remembered that the present disregards were not fixed in 1948 but in 1943. We must bear in mind, when we consider how far the position in connection with disregards has worsened, that the purchasing power of the £ was much greater in 1943 than in 1948, and again much greater in 1948 than in 1959.
I do not know whether anything can be done about it, but I feel sorry for those working men who subscribe to a sickness fund at work so that their workmates when they become sick and have no benefit except National Insurance can receive, after a month or six weeks of sickness, 7s. 6d. or 10s. or 15s. per week. I know of firms where men are assisted by their workmates in this manner, but those workmates find their generosity penalised by the National Assistance Board not because the local officials want to do that, but because they must bow to the regulations.
I wonder whether, in circumstances of that kind, the Minister could get the Assistance Board officers to turn a blind eye to the ex gratia payments made by workmen to their mates who are suffering from a long illness. If he could help, it would be greatly appreciated by those affected.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. W. M. F. Vane): I think that it would help if I answered questions in the reverse order. First, the question of the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) is answered by the fact that the point is normally met by the Board's exercise of discretion.

Mr. Fernyhough: But that has not been exercised in the case to which I have been referring. It would be appreciated if the Minister could say a word about that.

Mr. Vane: If the hon. Member will send me details I will take the matter up with the Chairman of the Board. It is extremely difficult, without making a Statute inordinately long, and particularly the Schedule, to cover every circumstance that might arise. In general, the sort of payment which the hon. Member has mentioned is met by the Board exercising its discretion.
The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) asked two questions. The first was about post-war credits. There have been repayments, of course, over a number of years and, therefore, this is not a new problem which we have before us. There is a certain experience already. The sort of circumstances which he mentioned have been met without great difficulty and, once again, it has been possible where special problems have arisen to meet them generally by the exercise of the Board's discretion.

Mr. Houghton: I take the point completely, but I would remind the hon. Gentleman that now, for the first time, we are making repayments of post-war credits to persons who have been on National Assistance for 12 weeks or more and, therefore, we are going right to the heart of the matter.

Mr. Vane: I realise the problem and that it may become greater in the future. As the hon. Member has pointed out, this is outside the relevant paragraphs in the Second Schedule and, therefore, right outside the scope of the Bill, because we have considered that there was not so much of a problem here as to make it necessary to bring the matter into the Bill.
The hon. Member for Sowerby also asked whether the disregards which we are proposing to raise in accordance with the paragraphs in the White Paper go far enough. I suppose that it is fair to say that whatever figures we offset some people would think that one or other had not moved far enough, or had better be fixed at a different level. But we are raising the real standards by lifting the rates, and we have to bear that in mind when we consider the proposed

disregards and compare them with those which applied ten years ago.
These disregards are not applicable to everyone. They apply only to some. Improved though they are, the rates are the really important figures. We are lifting the rates in a higher proportion, and it is not unreasonable to find at the end of the day that the disregards have not moved in quite the same proportion.
The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) mentioned a special case and asked whether the circumstances which he roughly sketched out were in accordance with any general rule of the Board. I assure him that there is no such general rule. If he is in trouble with any case of the nature he described I should be glad if he would let me have the full details, when I will take it up with the chairman of the Board. I repeat that there is no general rule, which, indeed, would be very harsh. What we are doing is taking power to change certain figures on which calculations are based, and nothing more than that.

Mr. Lawson: The point concerns cases where capital is being used as income. The capital has been disregarded, but when it comes to use as income, is it taken into account? I know that it has been taken into account in the case which I mentioned. I discussed this question at the weekend with a new manager, not the manager with whom I dealt previously and against whom I have no complaint. I asked the new manager whether there were any rule or whether he himself took the matter into account. He replied that if the applicant was expending extravagantly that would have to be taken into account. That, of course, raises the question of what is meant by "extravagantly". The new manager seems to have in his mind that if the person is spending capital which has been disregarded that can be taken into account.

Mr. Vane: I can only repeat that there is no general rule. The capital figures which we are considering now are intended to help in the calculation of entitlement to National Assistance. But, if spent reasonably, I cannot imagine anyone commenting on how a person receiving National Assistance dealt with his own capital resources, which usually are not very great. On the other hand,


I can imagine a manager, or any of us who might find himself responsible, commenting on the matter if it were known that a person who by general repute in the village had been spending his resources extravagantly was, at the same time, coming into the office and putting over the counter a poor face on his circumstances. But there is no general rule. All we are doing is changing certain figures on which the well-known calculations are based. With that assurance, I hope that the Committee will accept the Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

EDUCATION [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to education it is expedient, in relation to any new expenditure on aided or special agreement schools,—

(a) to authorise the making of provision to increase the contributions and grants payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under sections one hundred and two to one hundred and four of the Education Act, 1944, by making the amount of the maintenance contribution under section one hundred and two, and the maximum amount of any grant under either of the other sections, three-quarters (instead of one half) of the expenses in respect of which the contribution or grant is made; and
(b) to authorise the making out of moneys provided by Parliament of grants (not exceeding three-quarters of the expenditure in question) and loans in respect of expenditure incurred on the provision of sites for schools or of school buildings in order to extend the facilities for secondary education in any area in England or Wales;

but for this purpose "new expenditure" shall not include expenditure on work begun before the fifteenth day of June, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine, on work approved by the Minister of Education before that date under subsection (6) of section thirteen of the Education Act, 1944, or under any arrangements relating to work to which that section does not apply, or on work included in a programme notified to a local education authority as the main building programme approved by the Minister for the twelve months beginning with April, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine, or for any earlier period, nor expenditure on the provision of the site on which or buildings to which any such work was done or proposed to be done.

Resolution agreed to.

EDUCATION BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES H. HOY in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(EXTENDED POWERS TO MAKE CONTRIBUTIONS, ETC.)

4.30 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Sir Edward Boyle): I beg to move, in page 2, line 10, to leave out "established before the relevant date or" and to insert:
aided schools or special agreement schools before the relevant date or were established".
This is a drafting Amendment to remove a doubt raised as to the meaning of the word "established" on page 2, line 10 of the Bill. The purpose of Clause 1 (2) is to provide grant for a secondary school which is built to serve pupils coming from primary schools in the area, those schools being aided or special agreement schools, either existing on 15th June, 1959, or replacing such existing schools. It could just be argued that the phraseology of line 10 would let in for the purposes of the subsection, a primary school which is now an independent school but becomes an aided school at some time in the future. This is not the intention of the Bill. I know it was never the understanding of the House, and the proposed Amendment will remove the doubt which has been raised.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: Before we part with the Clause, I would like some assurances from the Minister about single-school areas. As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, this is a disability from which Nonconformists suffer to a considerable degree in many parts of the country. Indeed, it is estimated that there may be 200 or 300 single-school areas. Nonconformists and Free Churchmen do not like the dual system but they have accepted it with, I think, good grace. They have agreed to differ. In the same way they do not oppose the existence of denominational schools where there are sufficient numbers of any denomination


to justify the establishment of such a school. However, they feel strongly that denominational schools should not be the only ones available in an area. If necessary, they should be an alternative, but certainly not an inevitability.
I say at once that we are all glad that the bitter religious controversies have died down. Certainly, a great change has come about in Wales in the relationship between the Nonconformists and the Church of England, who are largely concerned in this matter.

Mr. James Griffiths: May I correct my hon. Friend? It is no longer the Church of England, but the Church in Wales.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. I am only rather surprised that he, of all people, should have had to remind me of that fact. This one problem of the single school remains, it is an irritant and it is time that it was dealt with. I ask hon. Members who are members of the Church of England what their views would be if the position were reversed and there were no alternative schools for Church children in a locality, and they were compelled by that very circumstance to attend a Nonconformist school?
We have no doubt what our Roman Catholic friends would feel in the circumstances. In fact, I asked one of them the other day, and he replied, "If such a case were to arise, we would not stand for it". This only goes to show how extremely tolerant Free Churchmen are. But that does not mean that we do not feel that we are entitled to receive at the hands of this House, when this Bill is passing through it, some assurances and safeguards.
The Minister said in his Second Reading speech that it was not his expectation that this Clause would lead to the creation of any new single-school areas. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be very sure indeed that he is right on this point, because I cannot think of anything more likely to exacerbate feelings, or anything that would be less in the spirit of the compromise that the Bill represents, such as it is. I hope, therefore, that he will be able to give us some assurance on this matter today.
In single-school areas we would all agree that it is vital that the child should not suffer, that a child not of the denomination controlling the school should not be made to feel his position. I know there are many hon. Members on this side of the Committee who have lived through this experience in our village schools. My father—if I may mention a controversial subject in such unexceptionable debates as these—was brought up in a single-school area. In that case the results were not very happy for the school management and governors. There might be children, however, who would be affected by such an experience. One important way of avoiding this would be to ensure that an agreed syllabus of teaching should be available inside the school as a matter of routine and not of request. It would ease the situation considerably for these children.
My next point concerns representation on the board of managers and governors. I recognise that this question is not easily dealt with by Statute. I myself, and I think many other hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, also, would have been glad to see some provision incorporated in the Bill. Indeed, if the assurances given to us by the Minister are not carried out, this may still have to be the subject of legislation at a future date.
Of course, we are all glad to have the assurances of the right hon. Gentleman but, as Minister of Education, his days are numbered. I do not mean simply because the Prime Minister may take him by the arm, but for other circumstances over which he may have no control, and he cannot pledge his successors. Therefore, we would like the right hon. Gentleman to make it clear to local authorities, when they have a say in appointments, that, if possible, they should avoid appointing persons of the same denomination as those to whom the school belongs. It is only fair that local authorities should pay special regard to the representation of religious sections of the community; people who, by circumstances, are forced to send their children to these other schools. That would be another safeguard which would be acceptable to the Free Church community.
Finally, may I ask this question? The right hon. Gentleman told us in his speech on Second Reading that there


would be meetings between the Church of England and the Free Churches. I understand that meetings took place last week and I hope very much that the Minister will be able to tell us this afternoon some of the terms of the agreement which apparently they reached.
Taking up the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), may I ask whether the Church in Wales was included in the discussions? As the Minister will realise, the Church in Wales is independent and not governed by the Church Assembly. If the right hon. Gentleman has not already had consultations with the Church in Wales, I hope that he can tell us that he is now prepared to do so. Perhaps he will also tell us whether he has made any progress with his suggestion during the Second Reading debate to the Free Churches that they should set up a central body which could constitute a permanent liaison with the Church of England Schools Council? That is an admirable proposition, so I hope that he will be able to tell us something about it. These are all matters which Free Church men and Nonconformists regard as vital to the faith in which they were brought up and in which they live.

Mr. Peter Kirk: I am glad to have the opportunity to follow the noble Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George). I will be very brief because I do not want to repeat much of what I said on Second Reading, which covered some of the points she has made.
I agree with much of what she said, approaching it from a somewhat different angle, as I am a member of the Church of England, but I think that it is fair to say that both the two main points which worried her and which are worrying many Free Church men—the question of providing some agreed syllabus in single-school areas and the question of appointing Free Church men to the management of single-school areas—have attracted the attention of the Church of England Schools Council.
On Second Reading I drew attention to the statement which the Council had made on the talks which it had been having with Free Church men over the past eighteen months or so. It is fair to say that the Church of England has perhaps

been hampered a little by the absence of a central body in the Free Churches, with which it could negotiate, and I very much share the noble Lady's hope that such a central body will be set up as early as possible to iron out the remaining difficulties.
Unlike the noble Lady, I am somewhat relieved that no attempt has been made to write into the Statute provisions which would ensure for all time and in all circumstances that those two things would come about, not because I do not want them to come about, but because I feel that in certain areas it might be difficult to follow absolutely rigidly the letter of the Statute as we laid it down. Over the past fourteen years the Church of England has tried to do what it could, in the question of appointing managing bodies, to see that in single-school areas, where there is a large body of Free Church opinion and many Free Church children, such Free Church members were appointed. In many cases this has happened. It has happened particularly in certain parts of the West Country, and it is working well.
In some cases, however, we have run up against difficulties. Either no suitable person could be found or, for various reasons, the Free Churches themselves could not agree on who should be appointed. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that these difficulties may arise again in the future. That is why the position should be kept reasonably flexible, although I agree with the noble Lady that it should be done in every case where it possibly can be done. It is no less than justice.
The Church of England Schools Council has made it clear that it is quite prepared to work out an agreed syllabus with the Free Churches when it becomes possible. I join the noble Lady in asking the Minister what progress has been made in the talks which he so admirably sponsored after Second Reading and whether there is any prospect of a settlement between the Churches on these two matters, which are the only two matters outstanding as a result of the 1944 Act. If we can overcome these two difficulties, I think that the last echoes of this appalling controversy will have died away, and that will be a very good thing for the country and for the children.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I rise to support my noble Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George). Her intervention had special significance because of the part which her father played in the great arguments which followed 1902 and which are now part of our history. The single-school area was a focal point of the great controversies following 1902 and special attempts were made by Augustine Birrell, Reginald McKenna and Walter Runciman to remove the causes of the grievances which the Nonconformists felt so deeply at that time. It is interesting to note that the Welsh Department of Education was set up as a direct result of the controversies of the first decade of this century.
Happily, as my noble Friend said, the bitterness has passed, but the single-school areas remain. Nonconformists still object on principle to this anachronism. They justifiably feel that denominational schools should not be the only schools available to their children in any area. Unless something positive is done the Bill will tend to strengthen single-school areas.
There is one point which the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Kirk) and the Minister have not yet grasped, and it is that the Church of England Schools Council has no authority in Wales, because the Church in Wales—it is the Church in Wales and not the Church of Wales—is independent of the established Church. The people of Wales, therefore, have had no direct connection through their Churches with the Minister in all the negotiations on this matter, and we feel some resentment because of that.
My personal feeling is that it is a great pity that the Minister did not go to greater pains to negotiate a settlement on this and other points with the Free Churches before introducing the Bill. We feel that the Bill has been introduced rather too hastily. We realise that we are in a minority in this country, but Nonconformity has played a very great part in educational progress and its views are entitled to consideration. Assurances from the Government Dispatch Box are very welcome, but they are not equivalent to safeguards in the Bill.
The Minister said on Second Reading that he had suggested that there should be a central committee of the Free Church Federal Council. I think that that is a good suggestion and I hope that Wales will be well represented on this committee if it comes into being, as we have a very special interest in these matters. If we are to pay these large sums towards denominational schools it is all the more reason why the single-school area problem should be settled once and for all. We should have our representatives on the managing bodies as of right and our children should be taught the agreed syllabus as a matter of right and not of request. I hope that the Minister will give these matters his very careful consideration.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): The Committee might think it useful if I made a few comments at this stage. I am grateful to the noble Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George), the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) and the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) for bringing forward the importance of the Free Church point of view.
It is fortunate that at this stage we have the opportunity of pausing to consider the important feelings and position of the Free Churches who, as the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said earlier and as has been said again since, played such an important part and made such great sacrifices in the cause of education in our country, apart from all the other important contributions which they have made. I am therefore pleased to have the opportunity, in response to the speeches which have been made, to make some further statement about that position and the way in which we regard it in trying to make progress with the Bill and with the problems.
I will begin by repeating the assurance which I gave the House on Second Reading that it is certainly not my expectation that the provisions in subsections (2) to (4) of Clause 1 will lead to the creation of new single-school areas. The Church of England is not expected to make very much use of this provision, and the single-school area is essentially an Anglican problem. I should also like to repeat that in dealing with any proposal under Section 13 of the 1944 Act


for a new denominational secondary school I should consider very carefully indeed the use which is made of the new grants. Section 13 gives parents ample opportunities to make their wishes known. There is a period of two months, after public notice is given of the proposal, during which objections may be sent to the Ministry of Education.
In addition, if the promoters seek a loan from the Exchequer for a school in a single-school area, I am bound by Section 105 (3) of the 1944 Act to consult such persons as seem to me to be representative of any religious denomination concerned and, if necessary, to hold a local inquiry. I would add that, whether or not a loan from the Exchequer is required, I have power to cause such an inquiry to be held, and I would not hesitate to use this power if I were in doubt at all as to what were the real wishes of the people in the locality. In the exercise of all my powers under the Act, I am bound by Section 76 to have regard to the wishes of the parents.
Now, if I may turn to the question of the existing single school areas, which was also mentioned by the noble Lady, it will be remembered that during the Second Reading debate I said that I had suggested to the Free Churches that the best way of dealing with existing single school areas would be for the Free Churches to examine the problem jointly with the Church of England. The noble Lady was good enough to ask me to give some information about how we got on. I am glad to be able to tell the Committee that this meeting has taken place under my chairmanship and that our discussion of the problems was greatly helped by the views which hon. and right hon. Members expressed during the Second Reading debate. I think I can say that the atmosphere of the meeting was very friendly, and at the end of the meeting we were able to issue an agreed statement recording definite results.
Two suggestions were put forward for easing difficulties in existing single school areas. The first was that steps should be taken to ensure that the Free Churches are represented on the managing bodies of aided or special agreement schools in single school areas. The second was that the agreed syllabus instruction should be given in all such schools. Suggestions on these lines have, in fact,

been discussed between the Church of England and the Free Churches for some time past, as the Church of England made clear in a statement published recently.
I want to emphasise this and make quite clear to the House that there has been no reluctance whatever about this on the part of the Church of England and that is an important point of which we should all want to take due note. Their representatives renewed the suggestions of their own accord at the meeting last week, and the main question was how to bring them into operation.
To take first the suggestion about managing bodies, the 1944 Education Act provides that these should consist partly of foundation managers and partly of persons appointed by the local education authorities. That is the position under the Statute, but although there is no statutory provision for the representation of the Free Churches as such, this can be arranged by agreement with the bodies responsible for making the appointment, and arrangements along these lines are in fact already in operation in some parts of the country.
The representatives of the Church of England present at last week's meeting said that they would like to see similar arrangements made in all single school areas. The Churches themselves are considering how this can best be done, and further joint meetings are to be held on this and other points. I understand that they have in mind ways of strengthening their arrangements for consultation, not only at the centre but also in the dioceses, and making them a permanent part of their machinery. If the Church Assembly endorses these arrangements, I think they will be adopted generally.
So far I have referred only to the Church of England, but the Church in Wales has been associated with the Church of England in earlier discussions, and their general approach to these problems is the same. I understand that the Governing Body of the Church in Wales will be asked to consider action along the same lines as the Church Assembly in England.
I come now to the second suggestion; that is, that the agreed syllabus instruction should be available for the children of Free Church parents in all single


school areas. There is already statutory provision for this in Section 28 of the Education Act, 1944, which provides that, where the parents—
cannot with reasonable convenience cause their children to attend any school at which the agreed syllabus is in use
arrangements shall be made to give them agreed syllabus instruction in the school.
The only innovation which I have heard suggested is that the Minister instead of the local education authority, should decide whether or not a parent can "with reasonable convenience" send his child to another school where agreed syllabus instruction is available. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that it is local knowledge of transport and geography which is essential in deciding these questions, and local knowledge is not to be found in London so much as in the area itself. Therefore, I did not myself feel that this was a good suggestion to pursue, but I can assure the House that if it were represented to me that a local education authority was not exercising its discretion reasonably, I would look into the facts with the utmost care. In fact, so far as I can discover, no complaint has ever been made either to me or to any of my predecessors in regard to this point.
If I may say a word or two to the noble Lady about the value of assurances, I think she will probably agree with me that in the case of a Bill which is unopposed and has the support of all parties in the House, the assurances of the Minister carry with them extra authority which might not be the case in a more controversial setting. On another point, on which the noble Lady and also the hon. Member for Anglesey asked me, about the attitude of the Free Churches towards setting up a central body, I can say that at the meeting they expressed themselves as ready sympathetically to examine the suggestion that there should be set up a Central Committee of the Free Church Federal Council, in some measure parallel to the Church of England Schools Council.
I end by saying that we are genuinely in a very different atmosphere from that which prevailed many years ago. I thought it was a little interesting that the noble Lady herself had to be corrected by the right hon. Member for Llanelly, and on a point on which obviously the fact was not so clearly in

her mind as it would have been several years ago. I think that is also shown by the fact that while there are, as has been accepted by the Free Churches, a few hundred of these single-school areas left, this compares with some 4,000 at the time of the 1944 Act. It is a very great contraction, and I believe that we are in sight of a solution to this problem by the good will that has gradually grown on this subject, and above all by the good will which the Churches themselves are showing to each other.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: The Minister said that he did not expect that there would be a substantial increase in the number of single-school areas in future as a result of this Bill. Can he say whether that expectation has been reinforced or substantiated by any discussions which he has had with the Church of England Schools Council? Is that the expectation of the Church as well as the Minister?

Mr. Lloyd: I think it would be fair to say that it is. I think that it is probably only in unusual circumstances where there was a general feeling in a particular district that the circumstances were favourable that it might come about. I do not believe that it is the intention of the Church of England to take any initiative on a wide scale in this matter.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I should like to thank the Minister for the statement that he has just made. As he and other hon. Members interested in the matter will know, we raised this matter at a very early stage. We were deeply anxious, and we still are, that the Bill, which is approved by all parties in this House, should also have the full assent of people in all religious organisations. We are anxious to meet these old deeply felt grievances of Nonconformists. It is good for the whole of the country that we are able in 1959 to discuss this with a better approach towards unity and tolerance amongst all the Churches in the country than was the case before. In 1902 we had passive resistance, and so on, and the country is none the worse for the fact that we are now able to approach this matter more calmly.
5.0 p.m.
The Minister was right to say that his tenure of office was not likely to be very long, but, as he said, his assurances carry


the assent of both sides of the Committee, of the Official Opposition as well as the Liberal Party and in that way have an extra force. As a Nonconformist, I welcome the new approach of the Church of England and the Church in Wales—to correct myself—and I hope that my hon. Friends who come from the northwest corner of Wales, with all its traditions and memories, will also accept those assurances. They should be satisfied that the old scandals of which they have memories will not return. Let us hope that in their administration of the provisions of the Bill, and in their relations with each other, all religious denominations will approach this matter in the spirit in which the House of Commons has approached it.

Mr. Clement Davies: I am very glad that the noble Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) has spoken in this debate. Indeed, she would have been failing in her filial duty if, with memories of her father, she had not given us the benefit of her views. The hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) missed out one great name, because the 1902 Measure was fought by two men in particular, the then hon. Member for Carmarthen Boroughs and the hon. Member for Mid-Glamorgan, who was afterwards better known as Sir Samuel Evans. It was on that Bill that those men made their Parliamentary reputations. Those are days gone by. There is now a much better understanding among all of us, and every one of us is pleased about it. I add my thanks to those expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) to the Minister, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his renewed assurances.
I hope that every one of us is now very conscious of the anxieties felt by Nonconformists and Free Churches everywhere. The assurances which we have received and what hon. Members from both sides have said have gone a long way towards allaying those anxieties. There is now a strong desire that we should all work together for the common end of the best education which we can give to the children.
One or two hon. Members—and it has been said outside the House of Commons—have seemed to suggest that the Bill would be the precursor to further requests

as time went on. Those requests will be resisted, and strongly resisted, unless there are changes in the situation comparable with those which have occurred since 1944. We all recognise the changes which have taken place, economically and otherwise, during the last fifteen years, and that has been the reason for our unanimity.
It was suggested by the hon. Member for Abertillery (The Rev. LI. Williams) that the time would come when there would be a request for a 100 per cent. grant for denominational schools. I remind him that whereas the 1944 Act said that the wishes of the parent should be observed, there was the understanding—and it was the basis on which the 1944 Act was accepted—that denominational schools had made sacrifices, were making sacrifices, and would continue to make sacrifices. If the full grant of 100 per cent. were made, there would be no sacrifice, and that understanding would no longer exist.

Mr. James MacColl: I join with others in welcoming the Minister's statement about the progress of discussions between Nonconformist bodies and the Church of England and the Church in Wales. I hope that my noble Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) will not mind my saying that if it was an Anglican dog which bit her distinguished father I cannot help but wish that the same dog would bite more Welsh children to produce the same effect.
Everyone will agree it is vitally important that there should be no kind of discrimination against children because of their beliefs or the beliefs of their parents. Every member of the Anglican Church should share that view, just as strongly as Nonconformists. The Church of England is not distinguished for having democratic centralisation as its basis of organisation, and therefore it is not possible ever to say that what is agreed in the council chamber and approved by the Church Assembly will be carried out by every managing body and every parochial church council. That is human nature, and it has to be recognised as part of the situation.
However, I am certain that everybody who has any responsibility for educational matters in the Church of England will be most anxious to do everything


possible to deal with particular cases which might arise where there may be difficulties of this sort. I am sure that the best way of securing what we all want is by having the feeling that there should be free discussion of difficulties and that we should not be at arm's length.
To follow a point made by my noble Friend, I feel strongly about the appointment of local authority managers to aided schools. Aided school authorities have the habit of going to local authorities and suggesting as suitable to be a manager someone who is regarded as a safe person and who will not cause trouble. That is not operating the 1944 Act in the spirit in which it should be operated. In appointing their representatives to the school managers of aided schools, local authorities are responsible for choosing people who will look after the public interest and the public share of the responsibility, which is now very substantial. That is something which requires not an alteration in the law, but a little more common sense on the part of the managers and a little more appreciation by the foundation managers that from the educational point of view it is better to bring in someone who will see the value of the school, rather than making it all a cosy little tea party in which only certain people take part.
When foundation managers are reporting vacancies, I hope that they will not try to put pressure on local authorities to appoint someone from among their friends, but that they will see the appointment as an opportunity for ordinary representatives of the public, ratepayers and taxpayers, to play a part in the management of the school and to see what is happening at schools of this sort.
I do not want to take up the time of the Committee, but I did not want to leave this very important matter without a Socialist Anglican having some opportunity of joining a Tory Anglican and giving a cordial welcome to what the right hon. Gentleman has said and to say that we shall help in every way we can.

Mr. Ede: It ought not to be thought that the main interest in the matter on this side of the Committee is concentrated in Welshmen, because the main problem here is in the

English rural areas. I am told that there are no single-school areas in Wales.

Mr. C. Davies: That is so.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: That is not so.

Mr. Ede: I gather that in the Second Reading debate there was considerable belief in the statement made in an intervention of my speech by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), but in England there are areas in which this is a very deep-seated grievance going back over a very long time. Part of the grievance is that, as a rule, the village school in the single school area is an old school, very often pre-1870. Owing to the fact that even in these days the child population has not greatly increased, if it has increased at all—it has more generally decreased—there has been no urgent need, mere physical need, to build a new school or to improve the existing one. Therefore, the parents who may have denominational grievances have a grievance that is also shared in many places by parents who hold the faith of the foundation of the school, that somehow or other their children in the village are getting a worse deal than of their cousins who live in a town where, owing to the expansion of population, the great new schools have been built.
I am disappointed to some extent with what we have been told this afternoon because the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery will remember that on 26th April, 1944, Dr. Scott Lidgett, with the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the chair, told us that he had received from the Church of England a promise that all the things about which we have been talking this afternoon would be carried out as soon as the 1944 Act was passed.
It is true that Dr. Scott Lidgett was not an official representative of the Free Churches. He was a freelance in this matter, and we were sometimes rather suspicious as to how far he was trying to promote religious unity and how far he was concerned with Nonconformist interests in the negotiations going on. In fact, since his death I have been approached by more than one Methodist organisation to know if I would tell them exactly the part that he played. I think that he did his very best in difficult


circumstances. However, I hope that it will be possible to put something into a Statute that will secure what we now understand is being discussed.
I see that the right hon. Gentleman the present Home Secretary and Lord Privy Seal is present. He will recollect the occasion when the Archbishop of Canterbury and Dr. Scott Lidgett brought to see him in the then Board of Education the representatives of the Churches for what were known as the "Archbishop's five points". It was remarkable that that afternoon the Nonconformists did not bring a single representative of rural Nonconformity with them. I remarked on that to Archbishop Temple after the meeting broke up. He said to me, "Well, you see, we did not bring the country parson either."
That, I think, is a reminder of the fact that here we are dealing with a special problem that goes back a very long way in its social implications in the construction of village life in England. I am quite certain that unless this is put into a Statute we shall always have a few areas in which, with the best will in the world, agreement will not be reached.
5.15 p.m.
As has been remarked, the Church of England is not, after all, an authoritarian church in these matters. If one reaches a bargain with the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, one knows that it will be carried out down to the smallest school in the country. But if one reaches an agreement with an Anglican bishop, one finds it very difficult indeed to secure from some of the parochial clergy an admission that they can be bound in these matters by what he does. The last remaining cases will be those where feeling is bitterest and where it will endure. I hope, therefore, that the representative bodies which are now going to meet will be able to deal with this matter.
I am excluded from the Federal Free Church Council and so are people of my religious views, from being represented by it. I do not want anyone to think that if they can reach an agreement with the Federal Free Church Council they of necessity bind me or members of my denomination. All I can say is that in 1870, when we were led in his greater days by Joseph

Chamberlain, we declared for secular education. Under the 1944 Act we agreed to the Agreed Syllabus and the arrangements that were then made, but it must not be thought that the Free Church Council speaks for the whole of Noncomformity in England. I do not know how it can claim to speak for Noncomfority in Wales because I do not understand how one can be a Noncomformist in a country which has no State church.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: I wish to support from an English point of view what has just been said and to say to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education that I took the liberty of sending a copy of HANSARD to all clergymen of every denomination in my constituency so that they could read for themselves what had been said from each point of view. On Saturday I met a group of Nonconformist clergy. They made the point which the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) made. They asked, "Is it possible that the promise which has been made to Free Churches could be written into a Statute?" They were not saying that they distrusted the word of the Minister at all. They merely asked whether it was at all possible to put those promises, which they accept with gratitude from my right hon. Friend, into writing. If my right hon. Friend could possibly do that, I am sure that they would be extremely grateful to him.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I do not think the House will wish me to be very long about this. I would therefore merely say that the Bill is designed to bring the present law up to date and to fit the facts as they are today without altering its general framework.
As we have heard this afternoon, the Act of 1944 and the discussions leading


up to it brought about a great change for the better in the atmosphere surrounding all these questions. I could not have looked for a better or more understanding reception for the Bill. It has been understood on all sides that the paramount consideration is the interests of the children and that whatever is necessary in their interests should be done.
It has also, I think, been accepted that it is being done without infringing the general principles underlying the Acts of 1936 and 1944. We have tried instead to build on them in such a way as to meet the needs of 1960 and the years ahead. I am much indebted for the smooth passage of the Bill to the collaboration of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite and below the Gangway. I think we can truly say that we have worked together in the spirit of 1944, and it is a pleasure to me to acknowledge my debt today.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: It would be most ungracious of me if I did not say something because, with great self-restraint, I did not comment on the Bill on Second Reading or, indeed, during the Committee stage. Many people like myself are greatly indebted to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary for bringing the Bill before the House and for what they said on Second Reading.
Special reference should be made to my right hon. Friend the Deputy-Leader of my party and to the able work of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), whose explanation of the Bill on Second Reading was, I think, agreed in the House to be almost a classic. The Parliamentary Secretary's reply was equally good. We know him as a man of ability, and more than once he has demonstrated his great knowledge of education. I should also like to thank the leader of the Liberal Party for the great part he played.
I must declare my vested interest and say that I am one of those who will benefit from the Bill, because I hope to get some financial relief very soon. Others who hold religious beliefs such as mine are proud to be living in a country like Great Britain. No minority in any other country of the world, and

that is what we are, gets better treatment than we do. Those who share my faith hope that the treatment we have received in this House will become known to the world, and we hope that other countries might learn a lesson from this country. To other hon. Members who do not share my personal religious beliefs, I can only say that I am grateful to them for the approach they made in this very important matter.
The great Dr. Scott Lidgett was mentioned, and it is appropriate that he should be. His work was done in my constituency, where he founded the famous Bermondsey Settlement. I know of no man who brought Christianity and life more into the hearts of people than he did. He really brought it into the hearts of ordinary people everywhere. He demonstrated that Christianity was not just a church, a cross, or an altar, but he was a living example of Christianity.
Whilst talking of Dr. Scott Lidgett, may I say also that Methodism in my constituency has to fight for survival. My faith does not make converts when Methodism loses. My church would not be happy if Methodism failed. The fact is that we believe, and always have done, in trying to inculcate into our children the point of view of our faith in our church. It is a policy we have always believed in, and I am grateful to this country for allowing us to carry on in this way.
We still have a great deal of debt, and we always shall. I am glad that I am going to get relief, but we shall not receive the entire relief and there will always be a lot of money to pay. The question asked by the hon. Member for Abertillery (The Rev. L1. Williams) was a fair one. He asked: "Are these people coming back for more?" For five years I have been engaged in negotiations in this House. Any Catholic who believes that it is easy to come forward and say "I demand as a right" is a fool. Anyone who is in a minority must understand that it is only a great country like ours that is prepared to give him concessions at all.
As I see it, the tragedy of the Bill is that if we could also have had the grant for new primary schools, which would have cost only £9 million over 20 years, this matter would have been taken out of party politics and away from the House


of Commons for the rest of the century. In the lifetime of all of us we could not have come here again, and that would have been said from the pulpit of Westminster. There is, however, that anomaly in the Bill, and it must be pointed out.
New primary schools will be built. We shall build them for the children, still unborn, who will need these schools in areas where there will be no grant. When these children are 11 years old and go on to secondary modern schools, again we shall find the money for these schools because the beliefs of our people on education are so determined from the bottom level that we shall carry out our programme. If we could have had this one concession tonight it would have taken this question right out of the political arena for the rest of the century.
I hope it does not come back, but I could well understand its justification if it did with regard to the new primary schools. If one thinks about it, it is a ridiculous anomaly that a 75 per cent. grant is to be given for everything but new primary schools.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) spoke about Northern Ireland on Second Reading. Obviously he has not been to a Catholic school. I was educated in one, and I have never heard any one of my people attack Nonconformity. I have never in my own school heard any other religion attacked. It is an absolute myth and nonsense to say that there is an extreme atmosphere in these schools. The pupils are always taught that Christianity is important as the three R's. There was no difference in what we were taught in my school. There was no difference in the curriculum.
We have our system of managership, and I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) when he talked about outsiders coming in as managers. I believe that it brings in a fine breath of air when one gets people from outside. I support any system whereby other people are brought into managership. Local education authorities have rights in this matter. They nominate the people, and, wherever possible, we try and get other people in.
We have talked about the problems of the Church in England, in Wales, and the Free Churches. Some time, somewhere, I should like a get-together of all the

religious denominations to talk about the possibilities of the Scottish system. Scotland has its own system which works. We have had no complaints from my Scottish friends, whatever their religion.
Finally, I should like to thank all hon.
Members for what they have done, and I personally pay tribute to them.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: Denominational views are rightly and strongly held but I think the message that goes out from this House to the country is that agreement between representatives of the various denominations is possible. I hope that this agreement and goodwill will spread throughout the country.
The Bill that we have been debating will allow the voluntary schools to play a full part in the development of secondary education which has been announced in the recent White Paper.
The right hon and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) said that he felt that, if parents wanted their children to receive denominational education, they should continue to pay for it. I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that they will do so. I tabled a Question on this subject to the Minister not very long ago. The Answer, broadly speaking, was that Church of England parents pay, in round figures, about £1 million a year for their schools and that Roman Catholic parents pay, also in round figures, about £2 million a year. That sum will be reduced by the Bill but it will still continue to be a burden on the parents, and one that will be willingly carried.
I believe that our debate has tended to show that it is the view of hon. Members on both sides of the House that the various Christian religions should get together to face the common dangers of indifference and materialism.
Finally, may I say that many parents are greatly indebted, not only to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education for introducing this Bill, but to the leaders of the three political parties who have given it their support.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: I hope that I shall not spoil the harmony of the debate, but, like my hon. Friend


the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), I did not speak on Second Reading. We have just listened to a most characteristic speech from my hon. Friend. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree, and so will the House, that the Bill is made possible only because of liberal thought in this country on religious matters, and especially the tolerance of other religious denominations and of those of no religion at all.
I rise only to express the hope that the tolerance being shown by the House of Commons and by the country to the religious denominations who will benefit under the Bill will be extended by them to differing thought and differing opinions upon many matters of acute controversy today. This note should be sounded. My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey truly said that we all hoped that other countries, where certain religious thought is in control, were as tolerant towards minorities as we are in this country. Would a Bill of an entirely opposite purpose be possible in the Republic of Ireland or in Spain? We do not wish to copy the kind of intolerance which we find elsewhere. I am angry when we see glimpses of it, even on the Order Paper today, and we are asked in the Bill to finance the teaching of religious bigotry and intolerance such as we found in some Questions on the Order Paper today. I refer particularly to Question No. 33. I ask that those with opinions different from others should respect the sincerity of those, who do not always think alike.
On Second Reading speeches were made to suggest that 75 per cent., as distinct from 50 per cent. is no different in principle. It may not be, but if the proportion becomes too high, or if it becomes 100 per cent., there will be a difference in principle. I have no wish to fan the flames of controversies which have now disappeared from public life. When I was a boy my father went to prison every year rather than pay the education rate to subsidise the Anglican schools. I was brought up in a home and a town of passive resistance. I have had to modify my views on this question, as many of us have, in order to accept the liberal doctrine of today. I am glad to do so. I ask no more of anyone than that they should not be aggressive, indeed cruel sometimes, when opinions different from their own are expressed sincerely, honestly and publicly. Let us have our

own say. Let us express our opinions without being abused in our constituencies and without being confronted on occasion with the most aggressive religious persecution that one can have because there is a viewpoint expressed contrary to that of a particular Church.
I have on occasions felt deeply at instances of bigotry and intolerance, and I cannot let the Bill go through without expressing those sentiments.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: The whole House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) for the passage in his speech in which he referred to the very different atmosphere prevailing in this country from that prevailing in some other countries. I was very glad that my hon. Friend said that, because I know that that consideration has been very prominent in the minds of many members of the Free Churches in this country.
I do not know what opportunities there are for my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey or for the many of his coreligionists who feel as he does on this matter to exercise any influence over what may be the practice in countries where his co-religionists are in the majority and where the same tolerance does not prevail as in this country. If there are any such opportunities, I say to him and to those who feel like him that any influence they can exert in the direction of greater tolerance in countries of that kind will be of very great assistance to the solution of educational problems in this country and, in a much wider field, to the welfare of Christendom as a whole. That is a matter on which Free Churchmen and free thinkers in this country feel very strongly indeed. I am very happy to realise how fully my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey is aware of that.
We are reaching the end of rather protracted and complicated, but happily not acrimonious, labours on the Bill. In view of the acknowledgements made from time to time by the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary, it is proper that we, speaking for the Opposition, should recognise the part played in achieving this success by the labours of the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary. To speak frankly, I have not the cast of mind


or temperament which causes me to enjoy co-operating with my political opponents for the sake of so doing, but as our work on this matter proceeded I found that there was a genuine pleasure in trying to achieve an agreed result.
That arises for two reasons. First, we not only were able to achieve much mutual agreement and good will among the religious denominations, but as the Bill proceeded the degree of agreement which it has been possible to reach has extended. That was apparent from the course of the debate on one of the Clauses earlier this afternoon. The view has been expressed that some of the things which the Minister believes and which I believe will be achieved in practice might have been put into the Statute. There would be great difficulties about that. I listened very carefully to what some of my hon. Friends said on this issue. I feel that there would be great difficulty in putting it into a Statute. If one takes that view, as I do and as the Minister does, it becomes all the more important to see that all the assurances that the Minister was able to give after his discussions with the churches are fulfilled to the full extent that is humanly possible. That, I am certain, will be done.
It is gratifying to realise that the process of discussion and agreement, which was going on between the Anglican and the Free Churches on this matter long before this Bill was first mooted, is now being brought to fruition as a result of the introduction of this Measure. It seems to have given an added impetus to the reaching of agreement between the Anglican and the Free Churches on the single-school areas and certain other related problems. I trust that as time goes by there will be fewer and fewer areas in which any cause for complaint can be found, until finally their number is diminished to zero.
While I am on that point, may I say how strongly I agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). It is certainly desirable that when managers are being appointed to an aided school in a single-school area, there should be consideration given to the claims of non-Anglican communities. I earnestly hope that it will be remembered by everyone who

has responsibility for appointing school governors or managers, whether a religious community or a local authority, that one of the first questions which they should ask is whether the person will make a good school governor or manager, whether he has acquainted himself with the very important duties that go with the job. The whole colour of our educational system can be greatly influenced by how well that job is done.
That brings me to the major point which I wish to make. It has always seemed to me that this Bill is important because it removes an obstacle to educational progress. My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) made a speech with which I have a great deal of sympathy. We have been anxious to meet the needs of religious denominations and of those people who hold very strongly this or another form of the Christian faith. But, as I said during the Second Reading debate, we must remember that there are a large number of people who, whether they profess the Christian faith or not, do not want a denominational education for their children, but do want good education for all children.
While we are anxious, and rightly so, to safeguard the interests of every other section of the community, it is important that we should not forget the feelings and wishes of that very large section. It is many of them who have wanted us to carry through a Bill of this kind so that educational progress would be possible without violence to the consciences of their fellow citizens. In this Bill we have removed that obstacle to educational progress. Let us be sure that we have the progress.
Among the many letters which I have received on the subject of this Bill, there was one from a person who is a devoted Anglican and interested in a particular Anglican school, but concerned that there did not always seem to be sufficient anxiety to keep the school buildings up to standard. The writer of that letter wants to know whether, if Parliament gives further financial help, the work will be done; will those responsible for the upkeep of school buildings see to it that, as Parliament has sought to help them, so they will set themselves a high standard in the carrying out of the responsibilities which belong to them under the


scheme which Parliament has approved. I think it important that that should be remembered everywhere where this Act is being administered.
It has often been said during the discussions on this Bill that it helps one denomination or another. I hope it does. I hope it does more, I hope it helps every child in this country and every citizen of all religious faiths, or of none, to feel that in passing this Bill, although it is not a major educational Measure, it is a necessary part of the improvement to education in this country; so that the general tenor of life shall be more nearly that which everyone, whatever his religious faith, would desire it to be.

5.45 p.m.

Sir E. Boyle: I wish to echo and reaffirm some of the points made by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart). The Bill was not brought in as a result of pressures from one denomination or another, but because it was the will of all the main parties in the House that all children, irrespective of their religious background, should benefit from the improved plans for secondary education which everyone wishes to promote. We may and we do differ—though not, I believe, fundamentally—on questions of how education should be organised, but there is a universal desire that all children should benefit from the rising standards which are the will of the country today.
I believe that to be the wish not only of men and women and hon. Members who are members of the various Churches, but also of very many enthusiasts for education who are not members of any particular religious denomination. I was glad to note that the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) referred to those professing no religion at all. There are a great many people, both in the House and outside, who do not themselves hold religious beliefs but, none the less, wish to see a rise in the standards of schools of all kinds, including denominational schools.
Without too much self-congratulation, I hope that we may say that the manner in which we have handled this issue and in our debates upon the Bill, may serve as an example to other countries in the Western world where the history of this question has not always been quite so

fortunate. May I express the hope that whenever this subject comes before us we shall be able to handle it in a spirit of unity, as between the two sides of this House. After all, it is we in Parliament who finally decide an issue of this kind. It is not a matter for religious denominations or groups outside, but it is one for the House itself to decide; and I hope that the agreement in the discussions on this occasion will mark our discussions on future occasions.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Fulham that throughout the course of these long negotiations we have brought about a greater degree of agreement and understanding between religious bodies. At the Ministry it will certainly be our aim to see that this agreement is strengthened so far as possible for the future. We know perfectly well that there are particular areas in the country where relations are still not quite as good as they should be.
I listened with great interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) as did my right hon. Friend. Of course, it is true that there are some rural areas, in England in particular, where there is one old Church school in a village with a declining population and where there may still be difficulties. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, if there are any particular cases to which he wishes to draw our attention, we shall at once take them up with the Church authorities.
I also agree with the hon. Member for Fulham that there may be issues of this kind which are better dealt with by negotiations with the Church authorities than by trying to proceed by means of precise legislation.

Dr. Horace King: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to publish the sentiments which he has expressed, and which have been expressed by my hon. Friend, in the form of a circular to local authorities?

Sir E. Boyle: We will consider whether anything useful can be done in that way. I take note of the point made by the hon. Gentleman.
The last point I wish to raise is this. During these debates we have talked a good deal about the religious denominations and the desirability of ever-increasing harmony, but there is one


other set of bodies which I hope we shall not forget in this context—the local education authorities themselves. Throughout the whole field of education it is upon the education authorities that we shall greatly depend for progress; and if we are to make a reality of secondary education for all, and to see rising standards of secondary education, as we hope, throughout all our secondary schools including denominational schools, then I hope that there will be the closest co-operation between the local education authorities and the religious bodies.
I believe that co-operation has become much more marked in recent years and the more it can continue the better. With these words I should once again like to thank the House for the reception that it has given to our proposals. I am absolutely sure that when we look back on this Bill in the years to come, the House will have no doubt at all that it was wise to pass this Measure, and that it will contribute to the fulfilment of those ideals which all of us in this House would wish to uphold.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS (LICENSING AND INSURANCE) BILL [Lords]

Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

Bill recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 3, page 5, lines 12, 14, 18 and 22; and Clause 4, page 6, lines 22 and 27 and page 7, line 28, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Maudling.—(Sir I. Horobin.)

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 3.—(LICENSEE'S LIABILITY.)

5.52 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Sir Ian Horobin): I beg to move, in page 5, line 12, at the end to insert:
the relevant date, that is to say, the date of".
I wonder whether it would be convenient, Sir Charles, to consider this Amendment, which is a paving Amendment, with the following substantive Amendment, in page 5, line 14. If that Amendment is passed, all the following Government Amendments become consequential and could be moved formally.

Sir Frank Soskice: I hope, Sir Charles, that you will feel able to call the Amendment to the proposed Amendment standing in the names of my hon. Friends and myself. I take it that in due course you may feel able to allow discussion on that.

The Chairman: All the Amendments will be called, except the one that has not been recommitted.

Sir I. Horobin: That being agreed, Sir Charles, I do not think that these two Amendments will take very long because they deal with a matter upon which both sides of the Standing Committee felt very strongly and we are just engaged in making sure that we do what we all wanted to do.
The point, shortly, is that we do not want to find that anyone's claim is barred by limitation of time as the result of any narrow judicial interpretation of the


word "occurrence". We want to be sure that it is not confined to a momentary definable catastrophic event because an occurrence might become a continuing or repeating one. In Committee I moved an Amendment to Clause 4 (1) which went a substantial way to deal with that, but I said that we would look at it again. We have re-examined the matter and the point of these Amendments is to make doubly sure.
One of the points on which we were not quite certain was the legal position concerning Clarkson v. Modern Foundries Ltd., 1958, which has a certain effect in England but might be held not to apply to Scotland. It would obviously be undesirable if different circumstances arose in the two countries. The result of that further consideration is in the words of the second Amendment which we are now discussing, and which I shall move in a moment. I think that it will make absolutely certain that what both sides of the Committee wanted to be done will be done.

Sir F. Soskice: I rise to thank the Minister for the obvious trouble which the Government have expended upon considering the points that we put in Standing Committee. The Amendment which we are now discussing and which we on this side of the Committee are very glad indeed to accept goes a long way to removing the apprehensions which troubled us when we were looking at this part of the Bill during Committee stage.
We still have, however, some apprehensions which it would perhaps be out of order for me to mention now as the Chair has indicated that it proposes to call the Amendment to this Amendment. The Amendment certainly goes a long way to bring in all those cases in which it is difficult to point to any particular occurrence where there is a number of occurrences forming a chain of events in circumstances in which it is difficult to pick out and isolate one particular instance as being the cause of the misfortune.
I am very grateful to the Government for what they have done and for the language they have chosen, and, speaking for myself, I am very glad to welcome the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: In page 5, line 14, at end insert:
or, where that occurrence was a continuing one, or was one of a succession of occurrences all attributable to a particular happening on that site or to the carrying out from time to time on that site of a particular operation, the date of the last event in the course of that occurrence or succession of occurrences to which the claim relates".—[Sir I. Horobin.]

Sir F. Soskice: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at the end to add:
and for the purpose of this subsection the appearance of symptoms indicating the presence of any illness, incapacity or injury shall be deemed to be an occurrence".
I intimated a moment ago that the Government Amendment still left one area about which we felt uncertain. It is this. The Government Amendment has certainly covered the case where we have a confused series of incidents, one or more of which could be said to be the author of the mishap. What we feel may not have been adequately covered is the situation in which a person after a long period of time, having been exposed to radiation through working in or near a plant, developed symptoms of an illness which would seem to be traceable to that exposure.
In that circumstance it might be impossible to link the symptoms with any known incident at all. They might occur years later. Doctors may be able to say that the symptoms must have been caused by exposure and to the proximity of the patient to some happening in which a radiating effluence was emitted. That situation, we feel, would not be covered, and we have tried to devise a form of words to bring it in. We have sought to provide that the first appearance of symptoms indicating the presence of some illness or incapacity and being symptoms which are the sort which one would link with exposure to radiation should themselves be regarded as an occurrence.
The result of that would be, if the Amendment were accepted, as follows. Supposing a person who has worked in one of these plants for ten, fifteen, twenty or thirty years later develops some incapacity—loses the sight of an eye, which was an example given in Standing Committee—or suffers some malformation, perhaps suddenly or over a period of time; and supposing that when the


symptoms first appear it is utterly impossible, looking backwards in history, to say that the symptoms were due to the fact that on such a day twenty years ago there was an explosion, or that "I stood too near one of these plants without proper protective clothing" or something of that sort, it will be possible for the claimant or, in the event of his death, his dependants to say that the actual emergence of the symptoms is the thing we point to as the occurrence.

6.0 p.m.

Our Amendment provides that the appearance of a symptom indicating an illness shall be regarded as the occurrence. The Government may say that although they recognise the force of our argument they cannot accept the Amendment because they have already extended the period to thirty years. My reply would be that we are dealing with a new type of illness and with a situation which has been very little explored. Doctors know very little about it. It may well be that, as the result of exposure which itself may have lasted for a very long period of time, one of these dreadful catastrophes will take place years later; we cannot say how long. A man's eyesight may go, or something of that sort. I bring that in as a rather macabre example.

We should make sure that that sort of case is brought into the scope of these rather complicated provisions. It should be possible for a person who is the victim of exposure which took place years before, or for his dependants, to say that years ago he had worked in circumstances in which he might have exposed himself to radiation, and to point to the emergence of the illness as being the occurrence under this Measure. I think the language that we have chosen in our Amendment would bring that about. If the Amendment is in line with the Government's own thinking, I hope that they will accept it and will redraft it with the assistance of their advisers.

I therefore commend the Amendment to the Committee. One is uncertain how these symptoms may develop and what form they may take. We are laying down the framework of a code of security, and trying to provide for unknown situations which may present

themselves in the future. We ought not to take the risk of leaving out of the Bill that kind of contingency. The Government have gone a long way to bring in everything that should be brought in, but they have not gone quite to the length that we would like them to go. We believe that the Committee generally will readily accept that the sort of situation I have described should be brought within the scope of the Bill, if it is practicable and possible so to do.

Mr. Frederick Peart: I would reinforce the plea which has just been made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice). In Committee, we tried to argue that we should err on the side of caution. That was always our approach, not only in dealing with actual safety of nuclear reactors and installations but of the personnel who are employed in them. I hope that the Minister will accept the plea of my right hon. and learned Friend that we shall err on the side of caution and not think in terms of a 30-year limit.
What really matters is how the individual is affected. There is great uncertainty in this field, in which medical knowledge is extremely limited. For that very important reason we ask the Government to err on the side of caution in this legislation and, therefore, to accept our Amendment to the proposed Amendment. I do not want to put it higher than that—we are dealing with unknown hazards in the radioactive field. I hope that the Government will accept our Amendment.

Mr. Roy Mason: I do not want unduly to prolong the discussion on this part of the Bill, but, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) has said, we stressed in Committee the need for safety. We can congratulate the Government, and successive Governments, on starting off the atomic energy policy and nuclear energy in all its aspects in a way that has made it one of the safest industries of the country and compares well with nuclear industries elsewhere.
Nevertheless, there is bound to be spillage or leakage of nuclear energy from these nuclear reactors, and such things should be taken into consideration. There may be a slight increase of radioactivity on the site itself and that will exist as


long as the site is occupied in this way. There is always the danger, as we have witnessed not long ago, that the operating boxes in our research establishments are used under the wrong impression that they are safe, and symptoms develop later on in the people concerned. Many people who are not scientists have to handle radioactive materials over a long period of time, such as radioactive waste in various forms when it is deposited in bulk from nuclear energy plants or dumped into the sea. There is no telling to what extent people may be affected over a period of time.
I doubt very much whether there will be another Windscale accident, because we learned very many lessons from the previous one and we may never have another one like that, yet people who are not employed in the reactors but work in the immediate vicinity of them may be slightly affected. To suggest that the appearance of symptoms indicating the presence of an illness should be regarded as the "occurrence" is reasonable.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will say at least that he is willing to consider all these points, which will bring the Bill up to the standard of safety that we desire and will err on the side of caution.

Mr. Harold Davies: There is no need for me to detain the Committee long over this matter, particularly since we had a long discussion on it when the Bill was in Committee. I would ask the Minister to say, when he replies, whether, when the Clause was drafted, the safety executive committee of the Atomic Energy Authority, which was formed in 1957, was consulted.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) made a point that is worthy of consideration. It is true that neither medical science nor nuclear physics is quite certain of the consequences of radiation. In fact, the nuclear physicist knows less about it than do the geneticist and biologist. That fact was brought out at the present Geneva Conference. Since the world is going in for atomic energy, which assumes that we can live peacefully side by side, it would be good if Britain, which was one of the foremost with industrial Factory Acts, were to take a lead in passing a safety clause for the

first nuclear installations, erring on the side of caution rather than in any other direction. This would be an example and a practice for the rest of the world to follow.
It would bore the Committee to stress the point further. The point is well taken, but I think it was correct for some of us to follow my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport to let it be known that we believed this was not a frivolous Amendment, but one which needed deep consideration by the Government. In Committee upstairs the right hon. Gentleman did consider deeply the points we put in debate.

Sir I. Horobin: I hope that the Opposition will not press this Amendment to the Amendment. I am glad that hon. Members opposite agree that we have tried on this and on other matters to consider the points made from both sides of the Committee upstairs. There is no party question involved here, but there are difficulties. The primary one, on which I base my submission to the Committee that we should not accept this Amendment to the proposed Amendment, is that it would destroy the whole basis of limitation.
We could have a position, which I think the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) himself suggested, of something occurring twenty or thirty years afterwards and then there is another thirty years in which claims could be made. Whether or not it would be likely to extend over that long period, the fact remains that such a provision would drive a coach and four through the principle of limitation.
As the right hon. and learned Member knows better than I do, there are very grave objections to destroying the principle of limitation, although we have extended the period very much in this Bill for reasons that everyone knows about. The difficulty of proving certainly the cause of events which took place a very long time ago is one which must be faced. It cannot be got over by extending the period. In fact, the longer the period the more difficult it becomes to settle exactly what happened.
I want to make two other points simply, because this is a late stage in the Bill and we are all anxious to get the Bill for obvious reasons. At such a late stage


wording is important and, while I do not base my objections to the Opposition Amendment on that, I should say it is by no means certain that these words would be reasonable even in themselves because they do not say, "symptoms in any way related to radiation" and, strictly speaking, any symptoms would become the occurrence. It way be argued that this would have to be read in the context of other parts of the Clause, but that is by no means certain. There is also the difficulty that it would be by no means workable, because after ten years the licensee could not insure and there might be a period in which he would not be reimbursed by Parliament.
I do not base my objections on those points, although I believe that they are relevant. It is accepted that we have made a genuine effort to go a long way, but to accept this Amendment to the Amendment now, would, in fact, mean destroying the whole principle, which is well embedded in our law for perfectly good reasons which we all understand, that there must be some limit to claims. We have extended that a great deal in the Bill. I hope the Opposition will not press us to go further to such an extent as practically to destroy the whole principle.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Robens: The case that the Parliamentary Secretary has made is very reasonable. We are all alive to the necessity for some limitation in making claims in a general sort of way. That is well laid down in the law, but we are in the difficulty of being on the verge of the unknown in this matter and no scientist is prepared to be very specific about what would happen.
While this matter relates to the individual who was working, it is quite clear that genetic damage could be done to him and that damage could be passed on to some infant. I do not know how that would stand under the law in relation to compensation in respect of a terrible happening which the scientists tell us could occur. We all find ourselves in considerable difficulty in trying to do justice to all those who are likely to be exposed to these new hazards and, at the same time, to retain the whole affair within commonsense limits and the general principles we accept of limita-

tion of claims. The Parliamentary Secretary has put the case well for the Government and I cannot quarrel with him about what he has said.
We can only say once again—I think that the hon. Gentleman would concur in this—that we are not certain at this stage and the purpose of our Amendment was to try to be as certain as we can be in all these circumstances However, in view of what he has said and of the fact that on this matter there is no difference between us—we all want to see justice done to people who may be damaged as a result of this work—I suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) that we are very satisfied with the explanation and the comments which have passed between us and could perhaps now pass to other parts of the Bill.

Sir F. Soskice: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Proposed words there inserted.

Further Amendments made: In page 5, line 18, leave out "occurrence" and insert "relevant date".

In line 22, leave out "occurrence" and insert "relevant date".—[Sir I. Horobin.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(PROVISION OF COVER FOR LICENSEE'S LIABILITY.)

Amendments made: In page 6, line 22, leave out from "the" to end of line 23 and insert:
relevant date for the purposes of subsection (4) of the said section three".

In line 27, leave out from "which" to end of line 29 and insert:
the relevant date aforesaid fell".

In page 7, line 28, leave out from "the" to "and" in line 30 and insert:
relevant date for the purposes of subsection (4) of section three of this Act".—[Sir I. Horobin.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

New Clause.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO LICENSING OF SITES.)

(1) Where in the case of an application for a nuclear site licence in respect of any site received by the Minister after the commencement of this Act it appears to the Minister appropriate so to do, he may direct the applicant to serve on such bodies of any of the following descriptions as may be specified in the direction, that is to say—

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

The new Clause is designed to meet a series of points raised by the Opposition in the Standing Committee. It falls into three parts. Subsection (1) deals with the position of local authorities, river boards, local fisheries committees and so forth, and provides that the Minister shall have power to direct anyone applying for a nuclear site licence to serve on these bodies notice of his application, giving in that notice such particulars as the Minister may specify and also making it clear to the bodies that they have two months in which to object. Thereafter, the Minister cannot grant the licence until he is satisfied that the full two months have passed from the serving of the last

of the notices, and he cannot grant it until he has considered any representations that may have been made. That covers, I think, fairly satisfactorily the important matter raised in the Standing Committee of notification to local authorities and similar bodies and provides an opportunity for them to raise objections. There is a proviso that this shall not apply to the sites of nuclear generating stations for the electricity boards because we feel that the provisions already made under the Electricity Acts should be adequate for the purpose.

The second subsection is a separate, somewhat cognate point raised by Opposition speakers at an earlier stage. It provides that where any organisation representing people working on the site makes representations to the Minister asking him to use his powers to vary or


revoke an existing licence he shall be under a duty to consider those representations.

The third subsection—again dealing with a separate point—provides that the Minister shall maintain and make available for inspection by the public a list showing every site in respect of which he has granted a nuclear site licence, save only sites where there is no licence for the time being in force and thirty years have elapsed since the expiration of the last licensee's period of responsibility. I think that will provide for comprehensive information to be available to the public on the lines that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite had in mind.

I hope the House will take the Clause as an attempt to meet the important points which were raised and will, therefore, accept it as it stands.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: I think we can say from this side of the House that we are very delighted indeed with the new Clause. We are grateful to the Government for meeting our points. I think we may congratulate ourselves upon the activity and the mental penetration that we displayed in Standing Committee. The three subsections of the Clause are the result of suggestions from the Opposition during the Standing Committee proceedings.
It would be out of order at this stage for me to refer to an Amendment which we shall shortly be considering, but we feel that the period of notice should be a little longer. We are particularly delighted about subsection (2) because it gives an opportunity to the trade unions representing employees at the nuclear sites to make representations to the Minister about matters connected with the granting of a licence before such a licence is granted.
Finally, there is the third point—we pressed this very strongly—that the public should be enabled to find out just where the nuclear sites are, both sites which are in active use and sites which have expired. The public should be able to obtain that information, and a proper list should be maintained by the Minister and maps should be available. Therefore, we welcome the new Clause.

Mr. David Price: There are two points on which I should like

my right hon. Friend to give some undertaking if he can.
The first relates to subsection (1) of the new Clause. It would be helpful to applicants for licences if they had a copy of the representations made by the various bodies. A water board might object because it had fears about effluent, and it is reasonable that the applicant, who gets notice, should know what the objection is at the same time as it goes to the Minister. I should have liked some words to this effect included in the Clause, but it will suffice if my right hon. Friend can give an undertaking that the Department will carry out the course which I have mentioned.
My point about subsection (2) is very similar. We had a long debate about this in the Standing Committee. I think my right hon. Friend has met the case made by the Opposition, but, equally, I think it is fair that the operator should be informed of the type of representation that the staff or workers' organisation is making to the Minister. We hope that, in practice, this course will be rare and that objections will be put directly to the management of the nuclear installation, but that should relations be such that it is felt that representations at a higher level are necessary, copies of them should go to the management.
I am sure that the House will agree that ideally we want the fears and objections of workers and staff to be dealt with by the management. I look upon the subsection as a safeguard so that where that level of confidence does not exist between staff, workpeople and management there shall be a longstop.

Mr. Peart: I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price). I call him "my hon. Friend" because in Standing Committee there was considerable agreement between us. In fact, he was the only hon. Member opposite who spoke—

Mr. Robens: And always very wisely.

Mr. Peart: —and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) says, always very wisely.
I support the hon. Gentleman's plea to the Minister that before licences are granted the representations of local authorities and other bodies, such as


trade unions and others employed at nuclear installations and on sites, should be made known to the people who have been mentioned.
I am certain that the Minister will be sensible, and I am glad that he has been sensible about the views that we expressed in Standing Committee. I am very pleased that our representations have had their effect and that any local authority will be considered and consulted and will be able to make the necessary representations. I am also grateful to the Government in respect of the plea that we made on behalf of river boards and local fishery committees. We emphasised how important it was that they should be able to make the necessary representations. I assume that water boards will be included. I take it that they are covered by the term "any river purification board".
I want representations to be made to site operators and owners not purely for negative reasons. I have always argued that local authorities and their staffs have a great contribution to make in this matter. They have local knowledge. They know the geology of the area, and they have special technical facilities. Local authorities have engineers and water undertakings have water engineers who can all make their contribution to the siting of the reactor. I hope that the new Clause will not be administered in the purely negative sense of making representations to prevent the creation of a nuclear site. I would rather see representations made to help make the site more efficient and better situated, and able to be operated more smoothly.
If we accept the Clause in that spirit I am sure that we shall have a better approach to siting, especially from the point of view of nuclear reactor operators and the authorities who will have to work with the owners in the areas concerned.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Mason: The Minister has generally satisfied the wishes of the Committee and has particularly stressed that water undertakings and local authorities shall be consulted before licences are granted. Water undertakings are very worried about the discharge of effluent, as the hon. Member for East-

leigh (Mr. D. Price) mentioned, and local authorities are worried both about effluent and about the siting of nuclear power stations. I understand that the Atomic Energy Authority has now managed successfully to develop a system which allows it to dump radioactive waste in bulk. Local authorities will want to be notified well in advance of the sites where this radioactive matter in bulk form is to be dumped—whether it is to be in mineshafts in their areas or offshore but nevertheless within the area of some coastline authority.
There is one other factor which applies to all forms of radioactive materials, such as radioactive isotopes, nuclear material and radioactive waste. When licences for sites are being granted and it is necessary to transport radioactive matter in bulk a code of recognition should be established in respect of the containers, so that local authorities, the police and the first services can become conversant with this code and will know, precisely what degree of danger is involved if there should be an accident or fire should break out. They will then know precisely what to do.
The word "radioactivity" still charges people with fear, and although we are managing to control it safely it is essential that the people who have to handle the material in emergencies should be sure that they can easily recognise the degree of danger if an accident should occur. The Clause will provide a greater measure of protection, because water undertakings and local authorities will know the whereabouts of radioactive effluent or waste, but if a code of recognition is developed the strength of this matter will also be known. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has been able to introduce the Clause because it will help local authorities and river boards, since they will now be fully informed.

Mr. Peart: There is one other point that I should have mentioned. There is no obligation upon a site owner or the people concerned with an installation to consult a water undertaking or local authority after a licence has been granted. Will there be such consultations?

Mr. Maudling: The points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price) and the hon. Member for


Workington (Mr. Peart) can be readily accepted. It would obviously be common sense for information to be made available. I can assure both hon. Members that the provisions of the Clause will be administered in that spirit.
In reply to the point raised by the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), I would say that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government has already begun discussions with local bodies about permanent legislation concerning the disposal of radioactive waste, which the hon. Member has often referred to as a very important problem. As for the code of recognition, I shall gladly have his suggestion studied, although I cannot commit myself in any way.
As for the final point made by the hon. Member for Workington, the Clause refers to what must be done in the way of consultation before a licence is granted, but anything which is regarded as necessary subsequently can no doubt be included within the conditions of the licence.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a second time.

Mr. Palmer: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 17, to leave out "two" and to insert "three".

Mr. Speaker: I think it would be convenient to discuss the Amendment in line 19—to leave out "two" and to insert "three"—at the same time.

Mr. Palmer: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is not necessary for me to say very much, because I suspect that we are pushing at an open door. We want to extend the period in which local authorities and other public authorities can make representations to the Minister in relation to considerations arising in connection with the granting of a licence. In official circles a period of two months is not very long. The notice has to be received and studied; other bodies may have to be consulted, committees may have to meet and officers may have to make reports. It is extremely difficult to do all these things within two months. We are being very moderate in proposing that the period should be extended by one month. We think that the Amendment will facilitate the efficient conduct of public business all round.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so mainly for the reasons puts forward by my hon. Friend, but particularly because, in the sphere into which we are moving, it is likely to be necessary for consultations to take place between neighbouring authorities. In the provision of these sites, and their licensing, it is likely that a number of local authorities will be concerned. At the moment the machinery for consultation on these matters is a rather cumbersome one. We hope that in time it will become much easier for them to consult each other, but it seems to us that three months is the minimum period necessary for all the consultations to take place, bearing in mind the fact that county authorities and non-county authorities, as well as neighbouring authorities, will be concerned. There seems to be nothing to be lost and everything to be gained by lengthening the period.

Mr. Maudling: The arguments put forward by the hon. Members opposite are convincing, and I would recommend the House to accept the Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 19, leave out "two" and insert "three".—[Mr. Palmer.]

Mr. Palmer: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause as amended, in line 33, after "him", to insert:
(whether or not such licence is still in force)".
This also is an Amendment on which I need not speak at length, because there may be an easy answer to our point and we hope that the Amendment will be accepted. We are anxious to cover the case of what I shall call, for convenience, the evacuated site, where there has been use of a site for a nuclear process, a licence has been granted and is later revoked, but the risk of danger still exists and, therefore, under the terms of the Bill, there is still a continued liability on the part of the occupier.
In those circumstances, if the Minister is to maintain a list of the sites or if maps showing them are to be displayed, we might as well do the job properly and fully and include those evacuated sites. They are bound to exist in the years to


come when this business has gone a great distance ahead. All sites should be included whether or not the licence for them is still in force. I am puzzled why this provision is not included already in what is generally a sound Clause. For these reasons, I hope that the Paymaster-General will look with favour on our Amendment.

Mr. Harold Davies: I beg to second the Amendment.
In view of the possibilities and the difficulties in the prolongation of radioactive isotopes, this proposal would be a safeguard. The House is well aware of the facts and, therefore, there is no need for a long speech. This is a reasonable Amendment and I sincerely hope that the Minister will give it due consideration.

Mr. Maudling: I cannot recommend the House to accept the Amendment, but I hope to be able to persuade hon. Members opposite that it is unnecessary, that the Clause already has the effect which they intend and that by adding these

(1A) Notwithstanding that a nuclear site licence is for the time being in force or is not for the time being required in respect thereof, no person other than the Authority shall use any site—


5
(a) for any treatment of irradiated matter which involves the extraction therefrom of plutonium or uranium; or


(b) for any treatment of uranium such as to increase the proportion of the isotope 235 contained therein.


10
except under, and in accordance with the terms of a permit in writing for such a use of the site for purposes of research or development granted by the Authority or a government department; and any fissile material produced under such a permit shall be disposed of only in such manner as may be approved by the authority by whom the permit was granted.

This Amendment concerns a matter to which much importance was rightly attached by Opposition Members during earlier proceedings. It is the problem which arises from the highly dangerous nature of certain substances used in nuclear installations, of which the outstanding one is plutonium. It was plutonium to which references were mainly directed.

The purpose of the Amendment is to make it clear that no private body or company shall have the right to treat irradiated matter in such a way as to extract plutonium or uranium—to cover all dangerous substances that can be extracted, one must specify uranium as well as plutonium—nor shall they have the right to treat uranium in such a way as to increase the proportion of the isotope 235 contained therein. That means, in effect, that no private person

words, confusion might be caused. The new Clause states that
The Minister shall maintain a list showing every site in respect of which a nuclear site licence has been granted by him".

That, I am advised, would cover both types of case. To make certainty doubly sure, however, the House will see that the proviso excludes from this provision a site for which a licence is no longer in force, but only when thirty years have elapsed since the end of the period of responsibility.

I assure hon. Members, therefore, that the point contemplated by the Amendment is covered and that to add these words to the Clause would have no effect and might, indeed, be confusing.

Amendment to the proposed Clause, as amended, negatived.

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

Clause 1.—(LICENSING OF SITES FOR NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS.)

Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, at the end, to insert:

shall be entitled to make plutonium and similar highly dangerous substances. That is in line with what the Opposition had in mind.

6.45 p.m.

An exception is made where a permit has been given in writing by the Atomic Energy Authority or a Government Department to somebody for purposes of research or development. We felt that it would be wrong to restrict research and development in these matters. An immense amount of research and development work is done outside Government establishments and it is for the general good that that should continue. It would be a great pity if it should be inhibited by reason of the fact that certain possibly small quantities of fissile materials should be extracted or created in the course of that research or development.

As the House will see, however, there is the further proviso that any fissile material whatsoever which is produced under such a permit
shall be disposed of only in such manner as may be approved by the authority by whom the permit was granted.

In other words, if in the course of research and development a private body made some of this substance, it would not be able to do with it anything other than the Government Department or the Atomic Energy Authority says may be done with it.

This proposal gives complete control over these highly dangerous substances without at the same time inhibiting, which I think would be wrong, research and development into these highly important matters for our economy. I hope that we have succeeded in covering the point that was made earlier and in carrying out the undertaking which I gave. I trust, therefore, that the Amendment will be accepted by the House.

Sir F. Soskice: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out lines 8 to 12.

Our Amendment would have the effect of leaving out from the Government Amendment those portions of it which enable licences or permits to be issued to private undertakings for the purpose of research and development with plutonium. At the outset, it would be churlish of me if I did not recognise fully that the Government have gone a long way to meet our desires in this matter. Obviously, they have given a lot of thought to it and in their Amendment they have gone, I am not quite sure whether the whole way, but at least very far to meeting what we had in mind. The purpose of our Amendment is to explore the question of whether the Government by their Amendment have gone quite far enough. As I repeat, I acknowledge and thank the Government for having gone a long way.

When we discussed this matter in Standing Committee, there was an Amendment in the names of several of my hon. Friends and myself suggesting that the plutonium should only be extracted either by public authorities or by approved research organisations. The Paymaster-General may say that in seeking

to leave out from the Government Amendment the words which permit licensing, we are being rather inconsistent and, perhaps, going back upon the earlier Amendment which we ourselves proposed. If we have to plead guilty to that charge, may we say, in extenuation, that it is because we are dealing with something which is so vast in its potentialities and so full of possible dangers that perhaps if we err on the side of extreme caution it is a virtue and not a vice.

Therefore, in putting down this Amendment we seek to explore the situation which may develop in the future if this licensing system is to be permitted. We are dealing with the very heart and kernel of the Bill. We are dealing with this highly dangerous matter, plutonium, and with the particular sort of uranium which is referred to in the Amendment. To say that that is like handling dynamite is obviously very much of an understatement. It is much more dangerous than dynamite. Therefore, I am sure that it will be agreed on both sides of the House that whether the Government are right or whether we are right in the doubts expressed, it is proper that we should go into this matter fully and see that we have drawn the line in the right place so far as human foresight can ensure.

The Government Amendment would permit the Atomic Energy Authority, in the first place, to license private undertakings to extract from the enriched material the very matter out of which atomic weapons can be constructed. The commonsense answer may be advanced by the right hon. Gentleman that it is highly unlikely that any private undertaking would be able or would have the desire to construct an atomic or hydrogen bomb. That one readly recognises as common sense. At the same time, we pose the question by our Amendment whether it really should be possible at all for any private undertaking to handle this material, to engage upon the process which results in the production of this material from the enriched product.

I would like the right hon. Gentleman or the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us the sort of private undertakings which might want, and might be licensed, to extract the plutonium—in other words, to have in their possession so that they could use it, the very matter out of which


atomic weapons are constructed. We are talking about the actual matter and not about any of the preparatory processes. We are talking about the extraction from the enriched material of that very substance which goes to make up nuclear weapons. We therefore ask: is it desirable or necessary that in any circumstances that should be done by a private concern?

I recognise at once that the Government Amendment goes a great way to hedge round the liberty of action of any concern other than the Authority. In terms it provides that any fissile material produced under such a permit shall be disposed of only in such manner as may be approved by the Authority by whom the permit was granted. Theoretically, at any rate, and within the terms of that language, I suppose that means that the ownership of the fissile material produced might be permitted under a licence to pass into private hands. I think it will be agreed that that is what the language allows.

I ask, in what circumstances could it be in the public interest that that situation should emerge? In what circumstances is it necessary for a private undertaking to become the owner of, as distinct from being given a limited right to use, the fissile material? If a strong case cannot be made out showing that it is in certain circumstances essential that private concerns should become possessed and become the proprietors of that material, is there not a strong case for saying that there should not even exist a power to enable them to acquire the ownership of it?

I do not want to throw out any fanciful examples of black market operations in this sort of material. Obviously, that would be unreal. There is nothing to consider or answer on that sort of hypothesis. But short of that, as we are dealing with this deadly dangerous stuff, should we not erect every sort of hedge to prevent the least possibility of danger, unless there is a strong case for saying that in some circumstances, which we think should be indicated by the Government, it should be enabled to pass out of the ownership of the State in the form of the Atomic Energy Authority?

Therefore, it is, as I say, with a view to probing and eliciting more informa-

tion from the Government in this vital sphere of our future that we put down this Amendment which, in terms and as a matter of language, seeks to leave out the whole of the provisions relating to licensing. If a strong case can be made for the necessity of licensing, I concede that our Amendment must go too far, but a strong case should be made out. We think that the Government should be able to satisfy the House, before their Amendment is accepted, that it is essential that in certain circumstances this quintessence of danger, the extracted plutonium, should be allowed outside the custody of a public body. It should be shown beyond a peradventure. I think that the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary agree with me in that proposition. We are dealing with something so vitally dangerous that unless it is essential that it should be in some hands other than public hands, there should be no power in any authority to enable that possible hypothetical situation ever to eventuate.

We put down this Amendment in case the Government spokesman may be able to satisfy us that we have gone too far. We shall listen expectantly to the reply. If I may put it in short compass, the point that I make is this. The Government Amendment—and we are grateful to the Government for having given careful consideration to our anxieties—enables licensing to take place under which private firms can extract this material. It also enables permission to be given for the ownership of this material, in addition to its use, to pass from public hands into private hands. If that is to be allowed under our system of law, we submit that the strongest reasons of utility and practical necessity must be shown to exist.

The case for this Opposition Amendment can be put in the form of a question: can those grounds be established? If they can, we should like to hear them. We would then be able to determine our attitude. Our Amendment is exploratory in character and we should like a full answer to our question.

Mr. Peart: We approached this very important subject in Committee not in any doctrinaire spirit and, therefore, I am pleased that the Government have moved this Amendment, because there is no doubt that it is accepted on both


sides of the House that the responsibility for the production of plutonium and enriched uranium must be with the State. Indeed, in reply to a question which I put to the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee, that fact was emphasised and it has been emphasised over and over again. We therefore accept that.
I recognise that there is force in the Government Amendment and that the Minister has gone a long way to meet the points I raised in Committee. Inevitably, if we are to have important scientific research carried on in the use of plutonium and enriched uranium, it will be necessary for firms in the consortia and, indeed, firms outside the consortia, in certain circumstances and with proper safeguards, to do research in this subject. Obviously, if we are to accelerate the development of gas diffusion plants in this country, we must have much more research into enriched uranium. I am certain, therefore, that, in that sense, the Government's Amendment meets that kind of case. Neither my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) nor any of my hon. Friends wish in any way to impede that work.
7.0 p.m.
Only this morning I had the pleasure of seeing, in the course of construction, a reactor which is to be built by the Hawker-Siddeley Nuclear Power Company, one of the Hawker-Siddeley Group. Obviously, a body of that kind, doing important research not only for the Hawker-Siddeley Group, but also for the Atomic Energy Authority, should, in certain circumstances, have made available to it from the Atomic Energy Authority a supply of plutonium or a supply of enriched uranium.
No one on this side of the House wishes to be doctrinaire about this matter. As I said in Committee—I stress it again—this is a partnership. It is a strong partnership which must go on. None the less, I am concerned about the question of ownership. I feel that the words of the Government Amendment are too vague. I hope that an answer will be given to my right hon. and learned Friend's question on the legal point. Line 10 of the Government's Amendment deals with the disposal of any fissile material. Does disposal mean a change of ownership? Do

the Government visualise that there may be a change of ownership of material which had been lent to a consortium or to a private concern? I am certain that each one of us on this side wants an assurance about this.
We are dealing here with material which can be used for the peaceful production of atomic energy but which, also, affects our defence programme. We are anxious to have safeguards about ownership, but in no way do we wish to restrict research. I have said again and again that we cannot be doctrinaire about it. There must be this partnership between private industry and the Atomic Energy Authority acting as the agent of the Government. In certain circumstances, I can imagine that fissile material such as that mentioned in the Amendment could be used fruitfully by an organisation doing important research even though that organisation is a private one.
I hope that we shall have further assurances about ownership. I shall not labour the point. The Government have gone a long way to meet our view, and there has been broad agreement that the State must have responsibility, with a proper licensing system. If that is in operation, I am sure that it will work well. But we must have a specific answer on the question of ownership, particularly as regards what is referred to in line 10 of the Government's Amendment.

Mr. D. Price: As the House knows, I have some very modest experience in these matters, and it might be for the convenience of the House, in assisting it to make up its mind, if I were to explain one or two points.
In my view, the case for resisting the Opposition Amendment is strong. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) has already given the main reason why it is right that the Atomic Energy Authority should, in proper conditions, permit private organisations to have uranium and plutonium. There is not only the obviously important matter of research in nuclear physics, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but also the very important work done by many establishments on canning materials, alloys, ceramics and various forms of insulation, linings for canning materials, and so on.
In Standing Committee, I declared a personal interest in the matter of beryllium, on which my own company works. It is not really possible to do experimental and development work on a new canning material for fissile raw material which one wishes to put into a reactor without having some of the actual fissile material to work with. There is a further legal difficulty to which I wish to draw the attention of the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice). One of the unfortunate features of this kind of work is that one is really applying the Einstein formula, converting mass into energy. One may start with a quantity of U 235, but, during the course of work, one may disperse some of it or convert it into other chemical forms. Therefore, all one has left is the decayed material which will go back to the Authority. I can well imagine very complicated legal arguments about the ownership of the part one has turned into energy. I will not labour the point, but it does add a complication.
My next remark will, I hope, allay certain fears expressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Uranium and plutonium, as he says, are associated with nuclear weapons and, of course, this must be in the back of all our minds. Nevertheless, I do not think that we should be too alarmed, provided that there is a reasonable system of licensing and permits as proposed in my right hon. Friend's Amendment. To illustrate what I mean, I will remind the House about the uses to which the element nitrogen is put. Thinking in terms of armaments, one's mind immediately goes to nitro-glycerine. On the other hand, although nitrogen can be used in making nitro-glycerine, one does not say that no private company shall work with the chemical nitrogen. If one said that, there would be no nitrogenous fertilisers. That simple analogy of the chemical nitrogen, which is familiar to most hon. Members, can be applied in exactly the same terms to the elements uranium and plutonium.
I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to remember that in this whole new field of work there are, of course, risks that these things may be used for hostile purposes—it is the job of society to ensure that they are not—but that does not mean that they have

not also a perfectly good use for the benefit of mankind. Stones may be used for building houses or for throwing at people. We should have the same approach to plutonium and uranium.

Mr. Mason: The Government's Amendment goes a long way to meet my point of view. I expressed a very definite point of view in Committee about the possibility of plutonium and enriched uranium passing out of the hands of the State. I hope that we shall have from the Government further elaboration particularly in regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) with reference to line 10 in the Amendment which deals with disposal. Will the material go back to the State or not?
The right hon. Gentleman will remember that, in Committee, I said that we visualised a State plutonium bank, the idea being that, at all times, plutonium and enriched uranium after extraction during normal nuclear energy processes should be processed by and kept in the hands of the State. We therefore visualised that this very dangerous material would always be kept in the hands of the State and farmed out only under control and direction so that we at no time lost sight of it.
The Governent's Amendment goes a long way to meet that point, but I am a little hazy about the last part of it. If the Government can assure us that at all times this extremely dangerous material plutonium and enriched uranium, will be kept in the hands of the State, that will go some way to meeting us. There is also the question of ownership of these materials used in a private reactor, perhaps by a member of the consortia or by a university establishment such as the Imperial College of Science and Technology, which may, in its normal processing and the running of its reactors, produce enriched uranium and, eventually, plutonium. If we can be assured that the material will be chemically processed by the State and kept in the hands of the State, that will go a long way to meet our point.
Every time we export a nuclear reactor—the arrangements with Italy and Japan are examples—it is arranged that the nuclear fuels are brought back to this country so that they can be chemically processed. Control of them is not lost and they do not pass into other hands.


If the right hon. Gentleman can assure us that we shall, in fact, have a plutonium bank, the material being in the hands of the State and, at all times, kept under our control and direction, that will go a long way to meet my misgivings.

Mr. Harold Davies: I agree with some of the points made by my hon. Friends, but I do not think that the analogy of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price), with all respect to his scientific knowledge, between nitrogen and nitroglycerine and plutonium and uranium 235 fits. There are two questions which we should ask about the movement of this enriched material. If this material goes into private ownership for research—and there is a case for research in private ownership—will we have safety regulations and provisions for insurance and compensation? The Committee has not considered this point. Such provision will be neded for scientific research under the drive of private enterprise or for university work.
I should not like the Bill to go through in its present form, It is very loose. When this material is used in a university for smaller experiments, is that covered by the Bill? Perhaps the Minister will clear up that point. It is important that the public should know that we have considered these points.
Another point about which I am concerned is this. This material will get cheaper. There is an interesting comparison between investment in the coal mines and investment in atomic energy. We were told that investment in the coal mining industry between 1945 and 1965 will amount to £2,000 million and that investment in atomic energy will amount to £3,350 million by 1965. When one invests in the mines, the older the mine gets the further one has to go from the shaft and a greater investment may be needed to win the coal, but the fascinating thing about this great discovery of mankind is that it will become cheaper. This may be a blessing to mankind. Ultimately, private firms of the smallest type may be able to experiment in this material twenty years from now because it will be so cheap and they may produce something that is worth while. Are we clear as to how this matter will be moved into private hands for experiment? I should like the Minister to consider this point.
We have spoken at great length about this subject, but I think that those points were worth making at this stage because they are points to which I think the Minister should apply his mind.

Mr. Maudling: I can confirm that the point made by the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) is covered by the first Clause of the Bill.
The right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) was quite right in saying that the process of making fissile material, either by extraction from irradiated material or by enriching natural uranium, is extremely costly and complicated, and it is highly unlikely that in practice private undertakings would embark on manufacturing fissile material on an industrial scale. However, the Opposition have made the point, and we have accepted it, that, although this is unlikely, it is not impossible and, therefore, it should be made illegal by Statute. That is the purpose of the Government's Amendment.
As I have said, the point is that the Amendment would, in fact, prohibit in any circumstances the manufacture of plutonium or the enrichment of uranium by a private firm on an industrial scale—not even with a permit or licence. Manufacture on an industrial scale is out under the Government Amendment. The only thing that would be permitted, subject to a permit, would be, for example, the incidental production of plutonium, which would be in small quantities as incidental to a process of research and development. It is true that that involves risks, but we must consider both sides of the question.
7.15 p.m.
I have been advised by the Atomic Energy Authority that if we were to accept the Opposition's Amendment and not make it possible for permits to be given for research and development the Authority itself would be considerably hampered because it would be prevented from placing with outside bodies certain research jobs which it cannot do itself. I am also advised that a good deal of university research would be seriously hampered if the provision did not exist. I am sure that the House will accept that and that we are at one in wishing that research should not be hampered but should be fully controlled.
The method which we have chosen, I think, is more practical than proceeding by reference to the ownership of the material. I suppose that there are many sources from which these highly dangerous substances can be produced, although some of them are perfectly safe in themselves, like natural uranium, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price) referred. The important thing, therefore, is not the ownership but that we should have regard to the point at which something that is highly dangerous is created or made, and ensure that no one outside the Authority and Government Departments shall have the right to make these highly dangerous substances save under a permit issued by the Authority. The safeguard would be that that permit would specify what use shall be made of the fissile material once it has been produced. The word "disposal", I take it, would cover sale back to the Authority, but I imagine that possibly it might be desirable for some of this material to be made available to the Electricity Generating Board later. What is clear is that the Authority or the Government Department, whichever it may be, has complete control over this dangerous substance from the moment that it is created.
I am sure that in practice both the Authority and any Government Department would not give a permit unless they were fully satisfied that the material concerned—the plutonium or whatever it is—will be just as safe in the hands of a university or research department as in the hands of a Government Department or the Atomic Energy Authority. Everyone knows how dangerous this material is. We can take it for certain that the Authority and Government Departments would take that precaution before issuing a permit.
I hope that I have been able to persuade right hon. and hon. Members opposite that our proposal is the best way to achieve the common object. It makes provision for proper research and development. It recognises that as an incidental of research and development quantities of plutonium may be created. If that happens, however, it can be done only under a permit, and subsequent use or disposal of any such material will be entirely under the control either of the

Atomic Energy Authority or a Government Department. I hope that I have persuaded hon. Members opposite that that is the fact.

Mr. Robens: What the right hon. Gentleman has said is very satisfactory to us on this side of the House. This was a matter which engendered a good deal of heat in Committee. We spent a lot of time on this point and at one stage it came back to the House. However, time has passed and we have forgotten the difficulties which lay between us.
We are happy that the Paymaster-General and the Parliamentary Secretary have been able to produce these words which I think adequately meet the fears which were expressed. There is always the difficulty in dealing with a Bill of this kind that we are trying to safeguard for unknown hazards and difficulties, and in drawing attention in Committee to the dangers which would arise if it were possible for private enterprise to produce plutonium I think that we on this side were only doing our proper duty.
What the Paymaster-General has said is, of course, perfectly correct. It is a very expensive process. Because of the tremendous cost and the work involved, it is hardly likely that anyone would enter this field, but we do not know exactly what work will be involved and what the cost will be in ten, fifteen or twenty years' time. Therefore, in producing these words, the Paymaster-General has covered beyond a shadow of doubt the difficulty that faced us at one time of preventing the actual extraction of plutonium, and its manufacture, being placed in the hands of private individuals.
We go with the right hon. Gentleman on the necessity of private enterprise in its research programmes, needing access to these materials, and to use them, but I was more than delighted to hear what the right hon. Gentleman said about the disposal of these products. Our Amendment to the proposed Amendment was, of course, intended to focus attention on this aspect. It was not designed in any way to do more than elicit the kind of exchange we have had, and I am very glad indeed that our action has produced such an excellent statement from the Paymaster-General which, I am sure, satisfies my right hon and hon. Friends as it satisfies me.
I am grateful, because of what took place in the Standing Committee. I am conscious that tempers sometimes get frayed—mine probably gets heated more quickly than others—and certain hard words passed between us. Nevertheless, the fact that there has emerged such a useful and profitable debate perhaps justified what took place then. I want, once again, to say that we appreciate the work of the Parliamentary Secretary and the Paymaster-General in dealing with this matter in this way, and I have no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) will seek the leave of the House to withdraw our Amendment and so enable us to accept the Paymaster-General's proposed Amendment.

Sir F. Soskice: In view of the answer we have had, Mr. Speaker, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, in page 2, line 9, to leave out from "Minister" to end of line 12 and to insert:
by instrument in writing—
(a) shall on granting the licence, and may from time to time thereafter, attach to the licence such conditions as may appear to the Minister to be necessary or desirable in the interests of safety, whether in normal circumstances or in the event of any accident or other emergency on the site, which conditions may in particular include provision—".
I do not think that this Amendment need take us long. It is put down to meet a wish expressed by the Opposition that the Minister should have a duty, and not merely a power, to attach appropriate safety conditions to a licence. This seemed to us to be a very reasonable point, and we were glad to accede to it.

Mr. Palmer: I understand that these words have been framed in order to meet points raised in Committee, once again, by the Opposition. We are, therefore, grateful to the Government.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, in page 2, line 21, at the end to insert:
(iii) with respect to preparations for dealing with, and measures to be taken on the happe-

ning of, any accident or other emergency on the site".

This Amendment, again, has been tabled to cover a very useful point, if I may say so, made in Committee; that safety conditions should cover not only the normal operation of the installation but also the arrangements to meet an emergency, and the proper action to be taken in the case of evacuation and so on.

Mr. Palmer: I believe that I was responsible for raising this matter in Committee. I then made a fairly long speech. I am now happy to make an extremely short one, and to welcome an Amendment put down in response, once again, to the Opposition's representations.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 2, line 25, after (b) to insert:
may at any time attach to the licence such conditions as the Minister may think fit with respect to the handling, treatment and disposal of any nuclear fuel which becomes irradiated in the course of its use at the site;
and the Minister may at any time by a further instrument in writing".

This Amendment is consequential on the Amendment we have just been discussing about the treatment of plutonium.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, in page 3, line 2, to leave out "who" and to insert "which".
This small Amendment has been tabled as a matter of clarification. It turned out that the Bill, as it left the Committee, might be read as meaning that all these extraordinarily complicated and sometimes very technical conditions would have to be posted en bloc everywhere. That, obviously, would be absurd and, in practice, would probably mean that nobody would obey any of them. By making this small change we are, in effect, ensuring that each of the conditions shall be available somewhere, but that the particular Regulations affecting someone's duty in some part of the site can, on the decision of the Inspector, be separated quite clearly so that the man who has to do something under them can see exactly what he is responsible for doing, and not have that duty mixed up with a whole lot of


other things which could only cause confusion.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 3, line 4, after "(1)", to insert "subsection (1A)".

This Amendment, again, is consequential on that dealing with the treatment of plutonium.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2.—(REVOCATION AND SURRENDER OF LICENCES.)

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, in page 3, line 28, after "direct", to insert:
and shall during the remainder of the period of his responsibility cause to be kept posted upon the site such notices indicating the limits thereof in such positions as may be directed by an inspector".

This Amendment, Mr. Speaker, and those in page 3, line 29 and in page 4, line 16, all go together. Again, this group of Amendments is tabled to meet a proposal of the Opposition that commended itself to us; that disused nuclear sites ought to be clearly demarcated so that people could not go upon them, as it were, without knowing that they were trespassing into an area that might or might not be dangerous. This seemed to us to be a reasonable precaution.

Mr. Palmer: This is getting monotonous, Mr. Speaker, but I must say again, while expressing our gratitude for this small but excellent change, that it has come about, once again, as a result of Opposition initiative.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 3, line 29, leave out from "thereafter" to "directions" in line 31 and insert:
until the expiration of the said period give to the licensee such other".

In page 4, line 16, at end insert:
and any person who without reasonable cause pulls down, injures or defaces any notice posted in pursuance of subsection (2) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds".—(Sir 1. Horobin.)

Clause 5.—(DANGEROUS OCCURENCES IN CONNECTION WITH LICENSED SITES.)

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, in page 8, line 34, to leave out from "as" to "with" in line 35 and to insert:
it is not in his opinion inconsistent".

This Amendment goes with that in page 16, line 4, put down in pursuance of an undertaking that I gave in Committee It does not make a great difference, but it does slightly alter the emphasis with regard to security. The Opposition felt that, as it were, the onus of proof should lie on why something was not published, rather than the other way round. I do not think it makes a great deal of difference, but we felt that we should like to meet the Opposition on this small point in this way. These Amendments make it quite clear that the reports may be published to any extent which is not inconsistent with national security.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6.—(INSPECTORS.)

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Palmer: I beg to move, in page 9, line 30, after "qualified", to insert "and trained".
We are proceeding so rapidly that I hesitate to make anything like a long speech on this which is admittedly a relatively small point. Clause 6 of the Bill deals with the question of the inspectors who will be necessary once the Bill becomes the law of the land. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will agree with me when I say that the success of the safety provisions of the Bill will depend to a great extent on the Inspectorate, just as the success of the Factories Acts depends upon the Factory Inspectorate. Clause 6 of the Bill says that the inspectors to be appointed should be "qualified" persons.
I think we can take it for granted that they must be qualified and that they will have the proper education in nuclear science and nuclear technology and all that is associated with it. But we should like to take the matter a little further, to ensure not only that the inspectors should be qualified for the duties which they will have to perform but that, in addition, they should be trained. I should have thought that in the ordinary way the two things, the two words "qualified" and "trained", would have gone together, and I am a little surprised that the word "trained" which we propose to insert is not already in the Bill because most Acts of Parliament, as far as I remember, particularly


those dealing with the nationalised industries, if they use the word "education", add the word "training". The phrase usually is "education and training". Therefore, if we substitute "qualification" for "education," why cannot we go on to add the word "training", and if we have "qualified" why cannot we add "trained"?
When the right hon. Gentleman, or his hon. Friend, replies, perhaps he will also tell us a little bit about how it is proposed to recruit these inspectors. I am, of course, assuming that they are already educated in these matters, that they are already qualified, and should also, as we are proposing, be trained. Much of the training at the moment will necessarily be done by the Atomic Energy Authority. I think it would be interesting to the House to know what kind of relationship is to be established between the Ministry and the Atomic Energy Authority in this matter.
Trade unions and some of the staff associations which organise staff and workpeople in atomic energy establishments—and there will, of course, be others yet to come as the extent of these nuclear processes grows wider—are most interested in this matter of the Inspectorate, that not only should the inspectors be qualified but that they should be firmly trained in the duties which they have to perform. It may be that I am taking too favourable a view of my own argument, but to me it seems a very sound argument, and I hope that it will be looked upon favourably by the Government.

Mr. Harold Davies: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir I. Horobin: I do not think there is anything between us on this matter, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. and right hon. Friends will not press this Amendment. There are really two quite simple reasons why we take that view. The word "qualified" places the responsibility for the decision quite clearly on the Minister. It is up to him to decide whether the appropriate persons are appointed in these different grades of service. We are anxious that nothing should go into the Bill which might cause confusion, and that might arise in two ways if these proposed words were put in.

First of all, there is not only the need for academic qualification in these matters and for specific training in certain cases, but some should have at certain grades substantial practical experience. Therefore, if we put one thing and do not put the other, that may lead to doubt, whereas if we simply put, as I say, definite responsibility on the Minister to see that the persons appointed have the proper qualifications, which is a general word, that difficulty is covered.
The other objection is very relevant to something which we all know is very much in the hon. Gentleman's mind. Indeed, he referred to it in passing when he was moving the Amendment. There may be certain of these junior appointments for which, if we are to get them at all and get them quickly, the Minister must go to the universities and appoint people subject to subsequent training. This Amendment would make it impossible for him to do that because he could not start paying these young people, who may have the most brilliant qualifications and be in every way qualified, as they would not already have had the necessary training.
For these and similar reasons, and as we entirely share the objective which the hon. Gentleman has in mind, I hope he will agree that his point would best be met by leaving the Bill as it is.

Mr. Palmer: In view of that very rational explanation for which I am sure we are grateful, and as, I understand, the word "qualified" covers, in effect, education and training, and as I see the strength of the hon. Gentleman's argument about the recruiting difficulty, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 10, line 6, at the end to insert:
in order to secure that the carrying out of the test does not create any danger.

This Amendment is for the purpose of clarification. In Clause 6 (2) there is a proviso that before carrying out any tests an inspector
shall consult with such persons having duties upon the site as may appear to him appropriate.

There was some discussion earlier whether this should not be spelled out a little more definitely, and the purpose


of this Amendment is to make it quite clear that the purpose of these consultations is not to consider the nature of a test but to ensure that the test itself does not create any danger—by the pushing of the wrong switch, or something of that kind. I hope we have made that clear and that the House will think it satisfactory to leave it to the inspector to decide for himself whom he should consult before carrying out his test.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11.—(NORTHERN IRELAND.)

Amendments made: In page 13, line 39, leave out from beginning to "to" in line 40 and insert:
(f) except in section ten of this Act, any reference.

In page 13, line 42, at end insert:
(g) for paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (1) of section (Supplementary provisions as to licensing of sites) of this Act there shall be substituted the following, that is to say—
(b) any board of conservators for a fishery district constituted under the Fisheries Acts (Northern Ireland), 1842 to 1954, and any statutory water undertaking within the meaning of the Water Supplies and Sewerage Act (Northern Ireland), 1945."—[Mr. Maudling.]

Schedule.—(INQUIRIES INTO OCCURRENCES IN CONNECTION WITH LICENSED SITES.)

Amendment made: In page 16, line 4, leave out from "as" to "with" in line 5 and insert:
it is not in his opinion inconsistent."—[sir I. Horobin.]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

7.40 p.m.

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I do not think that we need spend very long on this Third Reading stage. The proceedings on the Bill have been mutually advantageous. A great many useful suggestions have been put forward and even when they have not been accepted in their original form they have perhaps stirred up the Government to make improvements which otherwise might not have been made. We have dealt in a sensible, compromise way with the thorny subject of the extraction of plutonium and other dangerous substances, without impairing the essential development work

which has to be done. We have made improvements in the Bill as originally introduced in its relations with local authorities and water undertakings.
At this stage, I should refer perhaps to the fact that no time is being wasted on the related subject of effluent. In the next few days my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is meeting those concerned to get on with this very important aspect. We have improved the position of the trade unions in a field where, obviously, they have to consider the safety and circumstances of their members' work.
It might be useful if I repeat in the House an assurance which I gave in Committee on behalf of the Atomic Energy Authority, because it is right that it should be as widely known as possible that though nothing in the Bill is retrospective, the Authority does not intend to invoke the existing law of limitation to protect itself from any claims arising out of the Windscale accident.
One point which was raised in Committee and which might be referred to in a sentence on this last stage was the question of the certainty that the Bill would have application in the event of the fusion process becoming a reality. I promised to look into it again, and I can assure hon. Members opposite that we are satisfied on the best advice, that the terms of paragraph (b) of Clause 1 (1) cover those processes. The only reason why we used in the relevant passage the word "installation" instead of "plant" was simply that we wanted to include not only those but the bulk storage of radioactive substances, and so on. If right hon. and hon. Members opposite had any further anxieties on that subject, I think that they will now feel reassured.
One improvement made in the Bill as a result of observations made not in Committee, but by persons concerned, is the exclusion from the Minister's powers of any provision which might give him improper powers to hinder industrial processes which do not involve danger to health and safety. The outstanding one is the treatment of minerals like beryllium, and there are other processes which are of great importance to the large undertakings like I.C.I. which are doing invaluable work in this field. Here, I might make a passing reference to our late lamented colleague the Member


for Clitheroe, Mr. Fort, who, though not a member of the Standing Committee, had a great knowledge of these matters. He came to see us several times and was particularly interested in this aspect of the problem.
We looked again, at the request of some hon. Members opposite, to make quite sure that there was no harm in the word "vicinity" in regard to giving the Minister powers to treat neighbouring installations as one. We are quite satisfied that the provision in the Bill gives the Minister the necessary power and that if we tried to determine more exactly in legal language what exactly was meant by vicinity—how near it ought to be, and what kind of division between neighbouring sites constituted two sites instead of one—the resultant change in the Bill would lead only to complication and would not do any good.
I believe that it was the wish of everybody concerned to be assured that the Government were not allowing the grass to grow under their feet, whether it had a lot of strontium 90 in it or not, in appointing inspectors, because that, after all, is the crux of this matter. It is no good having beautiful provisions on the Statute Book if there is nobody to enforce them. I am glad to inform the House that Major-General S. W. Joslin, who has had a very distinguished career, first in the Royal Engineers and the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, and later with the Atomic Energy Authority, has said that he will be willing to accept appointment as Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations as soon as the Bill becomes law. It will be his first duty, of course, to consider the appointment of staff to his department. All hon. Members should be glad to feel that we are taking urgent action to get on with this important matter.
Although I cannot develop it, because probably it would be out of order, it would be relevant in rounding off the whole picture to tell the House and hon. Members who were not members of the Standing Committee about the problems of transport by sea. Progress is being made in respect of them, too. In relation to O.E.E.C. countries, a draft convention will be considered this month with a view to ratification, in which case further legis-

lation will be required. I am advised that the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna is urgently considering the general question as it affects countries which are not included in O.E.E.C.
I think that we can say, therefore, that in the Bill we are taking an essential part in securing that this great advance into a new field, holding out immense possibilities but also great dangers, is now being made on a wide front. We are dealing here with safety and insurance. Steps are in hand to deal with the problems of effluent waste and also with the problems of transport by air and sea. I think that the Bill has been improved in the course of its passage through the House. While, generally, nothing is permanent in this industry which is moving so quickly, the Bill is a valuable piece of legislation and I have no hesitation in commending it to the House.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. Palmer: In supporting the Third Reading, one can say that the Bill certainly had to come. Nuclear science is still relatively new and nuclear technology is certainly rather newer, yet the practical progress made since Lord Rutherford and others made the first pioneering discoveries nearly half a century ago has been enormous. Some of that progress has been made under the impact of war, and much under the challenge of post-war industrial advance.
Speaking as a Socialist I would be prepared gladly to say that in many of these developments private capitalism has played a worthy part. However it should be remembered that the major planning, research and development has been undertaken by public enterprise. So when one looks at the history of nuclear development one can hardly say afterwards that public enterprise cannot initiate change and progress.
Nothing stands still; alteration and evolution continue all the time. It would be a great danger to the industrial progress of our country if we confined nuclear development in too tight a legislative jacket. It is inevitable that as nuclear knowledge and application grows, it will become less and less of a mystery and more and more of a normal industrial technique. That is all to the good. The further we can get it away


from the semi-secret military atmosphere, the better all round.
We should welcome this development because of the constructive industrial benefit it can bring to our country and, without being too pompous about it, to all mankind. However, because of the special dangers to health, life and property associated with radioactive processes, and because of the well-known potential military use of nuclear materials, it is essential that the public interest should be fully safeguarded at all stages. Hence the provisions in the Bill that all nuclear installations must have a licence and that safety and insurance conditions must be imposed. I think my hon. Friends would agree with me if I said that, on balance, in Committee we thought the Government had gone a little too far in the provisions of the licensing system, though it is true that before the end of our discussions we seemed to reach more general all round agreement on that point.
On the insurance provisions, I think it might have been possible to arrange that the insurance could have been undertaken through the medium of a fund raised by a levy on all the undertakings likely to be concerned. Instead it is being done by private insurance, but only for the first period of ten years. After that it will be necessary for Parliament to look at the situation again and make a special provision.
On the matter of safety, I think one can say that both sides of the Committee upstairs did a great deal to improve the Bill. The fact that a great many Opposition Amendments were accepted should be taken as a tribute to the helpfulness of the Government. Also without being too boastful about it, I think it is a tribute to my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Opposition have worked hard on this Bill because we appreciate how important it is.
During the Second Reading debate, I described the Bill as being a somewhat reach-me-down commercial little Measure. Looking back, I think that was too harsh a view. Whether I was right or wrong on that occasion, however, I am prepared to accept that the Bill is now much better than when it left its Second Reading.
For that reason, I have pleasure in supporting its Third Reading.

7.54 p.m.

Mr. Mason: First, may I congratulate the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary on having successfully piloted the Bill through to its final stages. At one time in Committee the atmosphere was rather charged with radioactivity, and it took a little time before we managed to disperse the radioactive matter, after which we had a rather clearer atmosphere and progress was made.
If this country is to expand and prosper and the nation is to have an economic future, the new industry of atomic energy will have to play its part, and the greater the energy output of a nation the greater its prosperity. That yardstick has been used time and time again, and undoubtedly it will be the yardstick of our economic expansion in future years. This industry will certainly play its part in that respect.
I come from the basic industry of the country, coal mining. I can see that its future is threatened seriously by the gradual advent of nuclear energy, but that is not worrying me. The quicker we can get all men out of the mines and away from the dangerous and hazardous occupation of coal mining, the better it will be for us all, provided that it can be done in a fashion so phased that no social problems of great magnitude follow.
It is pleasing to know that in spite of the fact that this is a densely populated island, because we have managed so successfully to introduce the new industry in all its aspects throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, we have had few accidents. That reflects great credit on an Authority which is completely controlled by the State, and it is one of the great benefits of having new industries started under State control. I have often wished that the coal-mining industry could have started on the same plane, for it would have saved many lives and have avoided accidents and great disasters. Already this industry is one of the safest in the country, and there is no nuclear energy activity in America or Russia which compares with ours in that respect.
This Bill is in itself a safety measure because it will assure that safety will prevail in the industry. What is most important is that in case of accident it will provide insurance for those who


work in the industry and for many people who will be residing in the immediate vicinity of the vast new nuclear power stations.
Briefly then, because I do not want to prolong the passage of the Bill through its final stages, I would say that the new industry is developing in a rapid, orderly and licensed fashion. I congratulate the two Ministers who have been responsible for getting it through the House, in spite of the heated opposition we had at times and of having to go through the unusual procedure of descending to the House prematurely.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Peart: I, too, add my congratulalations to both Ministers on the way in which they have handled the Bill and have met many of the arguments advanced by this side of the House. In that sense the Bill has had a good Committee stage. I only wish that during that stage more hon. Gentlemen opposite had spoken, because this is not a party Bill. We have not approached it from a doctrinaire point of view, as I have stressed time and time again. We have only been anxious to ensure that there shall be created in this country a real safety organisation for the siting of reactors, the handling of radioactive materials and, above all, a safety code. We have been anxious to do that and the Bill reflects credit on both sides of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) has stressed the importance of nuclear energy. We all accept that, but he said that it is going to play a part. I would remind my hon. Friend that it is now playing a part. Indeed, that was why many of us during the Committee stage were anxious to ensure that, for example, radioactive isotopes were covered by the Bill. I will not repeat the details of their use which I gave in Committee, but I have seen already in various research institutions the use of radioactive materials. For example, radioactive Caesium is now used in soil research—thus radioactive isotopes will help to improve our grasslands and food production. This is now being done in this country, and so nuclear energy in its peaceful uses is here, and we must recognise that. Therefore, the Bill is of great importance.
I wish that many more hon. Members had taken an interest in the Bill because it may well affect the pattern of our development in this field. That is why we had the main arguments of policy over Clause 1. There must not be any repetition, but it is right and proper that on this safety measure policy should be discussed and that even at this late hour, on Third Reading, we should bear in mind that policy in turn will affect safety and siting and that both sides are complementary.
We are very glad that we have had an assurance that the work of the Authority will go on and that no one will seek for doctrinaire reasons to impair the vitality of that body. I argued in the Standing Committee what we have seen abroad, particularly in the United States, where the Atomic Energy Commission is in a sense being frustrated for doctrinaire reasons. Congress has decided that the Commission shall shed itself of responsibilities and that there shall be a handing-over of the work of that authority to private industry for doctrinaire reasons. I am very glad that hon. Members opposite have not taken that view and that the Minister moved an Amendment to cover that situation and to show the world that we intend to make the Authority work, and make it work in conjunction with private industry. It is commendable that both sides of the House should accept this and that we should reject above all a doctrinaire approach.
There is much to be done. The purpose of the Bill is safety, and, therefore, the real key to the operation is the inspectorate. Earlier we moved an Amendment focussing attention on the need to have a trained inspectorate. We have argued this matter over and over again. I believe it is now accepted that if we are to have proper safeguards and if the industry is to develop as it is doing the inspectorate must be of the highest quality. It must consist of graduates, of medical people with training in nuclear physics or nuclear physicists with training in medicine, and they must be of the highest quality in order to do the job.
I am glad that the Minister has mentioned that fusion is coming. We all know of ZETA, but let us remember that other


countries are forging ahead in this direction. In the Standing Committee I quoted the experience of Western Germany which has three centres—Aachen, Gottingen and Hamburg—where research is going on into the fusion process. It may well be that much of our fission process will become obsolete in the next ten years. In fact, some of it is obsolescent now. Consequently, we must recognise that the process is thrusting forward not only in Western Germany but in the Soviet Union. We must regard it as part of the normal nuclear processes, and, therefore, it is right and proper that the fusion process should be covered by the Bill.
The Bill raises many other points which have not yet been covered in too much detail. I should have liked more argument about the insurance situation, especially the arguments mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) earlier. I should still like more assurances in the Bill about the place of local authorities and water undertakings in consultation not before the granting of a site licence but afterwards. I have stressed the importance of technical people outside the Atomic Energy Authority who can make a continous contribution in respect of the monitoring arrangements that we have for our water supplies. All this is work which can be done by experts employed outside the Authority. I want that cooperation to continue not in a negative sense but in a positive sense.
The Bill may contain various snags, but that is understandable. After all, we are trying to marry the abracadabra of science with the abracadabra of law, and it is not easy to do so. The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have done well in that direction. They have explained most of the Clauses lucidly. We are glad that they have approached the Bill in this spirit, and each of us is glad to have been able to make his little contribution to this first major Bill affecting the safety of reactors.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: Although the House may not be too full, one of the most historic Bills in the history of Parliament has moved quietly on its way this afternoon.
If mankind can resist its suicidal tendency—I wonder about it sometimes—there is no doubt that this is man's next step forward through the world, but for the success of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes co-operation between the whole of mankind is needed, and it is no good any one nation claiming all the prizes for this, although we in Britain are very lucky because we did a good deal of pioneer work.
We have reached the pitch now where man, if he wants complete co-operation, must accept some of the great discoveries such as those of the two young Japanese scientists who were awarded a prize not long ago for their work on the atom. The Russians, the Germans and all of us are confronted with this fact. No alchemist in his medieval laboratory, with his dried lizards and dried crocodile skins, surrounded by a shining alembic, ever visualised the possibilities of what man can do in the twentieth century.
The Bill shows the intent of man's desire to work peacefully to control his environment. Some of us who are called Utopian are often much more realistic than those who think they can defend the country by still having the hydrogen bomb. However, I will not go into that argument. I merely want to make it clear that we can produce plenty of power. The Conservative Party told us that it would double the standard of life of the country in twenty-five years. Every intelligent human being knows that one can double the standard of life only if one can double power and the amount of energy. Here is the opportunity if man will get down to it.
In the Standing Committee I stressed two points, and I want to re-emphasise them. I still think that as we learn and move along empirically and pragmatically we shall discover that from time to time the Minister will have to come to the House to make changes in this original Nuclear Installations Bill, because the British trade union movement has now a new element of production, a new economic process, facing it. The British trade union movement and trade union movements all over the world will have to have scientists and physicists and perhaps geneticists giving them advice about working in an environment which


contains radioactive isotopes or other radioactive materials.
Any Government in power will have to admit the right of the trade union movement's experts to have access to much of the so-called secret information. This secrecy humbug, this conspiracy of silence about facts which are known in Cairo, Tokyo and Berlin, is sometimes exaggerated. The trade union movement will have to be consulted from time to time. The trade union movement is not a movement of Luddites in this age of automation and nuclear and atomic energy, and it will have to be listened to, and it will, as it has shown through history, demonstrate its reasonable approach to the problem. I should have liked the right of the trade union experts to be written into the Bill—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): Order. On Third Reading, hon. Members can deal only with what is contained in the Bill.

Mr. Davies: The Bill deals with the inspectorate, and I hope that one of the inspectors will be a trade union officer with suitable qualifications.
My last point is concerned with insurance. We are not quite sure about the cost. Some Americans—we have had this information from scientific reports from Geneva and elsewhere—have made fantastic, astronomical estimates of the possibilities of damage, extending to £200 million or £250 million, if some of the reactors were to go wrong. Whether the whole of the taxpayers' cross of gold is to be the substantial pool behind private nuclear reactors is an interesting and moot point. There is a point here about insurance. I am quite certain that we shall have to come to the House again to look further into the vast problem of insurance coverage as we get our twelve nuclear reactors operating throughout the country.
Nevertheless, it has been a privilege to work with the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen opposite on this little Bill, which I consider to be quite an historical one. I hope that as we go along in this country we shall be able to demonstrate to the world that we are using this power for the uplifting of the standards of life, not only of our own people, but of the people in the Commonwealth, and that we shall be prepared

to give that "know-how" to the underprivileged areas of the world, where poverty, hunger and disease constitute a far bigger menace than anything we can say about Communism at the moment.

8.11 p.m.

Mrs. Butler: I wish to associate myself with the blessings showered on the Bill, which I think is now a very much more workmanlike Bill than it was before. I particularly welcome the additions and improvements which have been made in providing for consultation with the local authorities and the trade unions.
I rise not to detain the House, but only to emphasise what I think is most important. It is that the sense of urgency which has accompanied this Bill throughout the Committee stage—indeed, at some stages it went so fast that it left most of us behind—and which has also accompanied our proceedings tonight, will carry on when the Bill leaves our hands. We are blessing it on its way tonight, but I am concerned with what happens afterwards. The Bill now states that
This Act shall come into force on such date as Her Majesty may by Order in Council appoint.
I do not know what the Government have in mind in regard to that date, or how quickly they will be able to bring all the provisions of the Act into operation.
The Parliamentary Secretary has mentioned tonight the special arrangements which have been made for the training and appointment of the inspectorate, and all this may be quite a lengthy procedure. I do not want to strike a discordant note into the winding-up proceedings, but I would remind the House that, on the question of consultation, for example, water undertakings made their representations to the Minister a year ago—in June of last year—and we have now got to the point of bringing them into the Bill. It has taken a year to do that, and a great deal of radioactive material can be washed into the rivers during a year.
I therefore hope that the Minister understands the urgency of the matter, and that the Government, when they get the Bill passed into law, will do everything they can to keep up the pressure so that we can get all the provisions of the Bill into operation as quickly as possible. I am sure that that is what we all desire, and that that is the whole purpose of the discussions which we have been having.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and to the Minister for intervening in the Third Reading debate when I have not been able to attend the House during the day. I have been engaged on other Parliamentary duties, but my interest in the Bill is very great, because in my constituency there is a nuclear research station which will be considerably affected by this Measure.
Twelve Members of Parliament have today visited the nuclear research station at Langley in my constituency which is being conducted by the Hawker-Siddeley Group. I was fortunate enough to make an earlier visit, and I say at once that, while I welcome the provisions of the Bill which will make for the safety of the public, I was deeply impressed on that earlier visit and again today by the provisions which are being made spontaneously by those who are responsible for research stations in regard to safety.
When it was learned in my constituency that a nuclear research station was to be opened, there was a great deal of nervousness in the first instance, but I have no doubt at all, after that visit and after a good deal of examination, that everything that is physically possible to maintain safety is being carried out there. I have no doubt at all that a similar approach to this is being made in other nuclear research stations. Nevertheless, it is very important that we should have in our legislation safeguards for that purpose, and for that reason I welcome the Bill.
The second thing I want to say is that every one of us who made that visit today was enormously impressed by the services which nuclear science can render to the cause of peace. When today we hear so much of the disaster which nuclear development can bring to the world, it is good that we should be spending some time considering a Bill which is related to the application of nuclear science for peaceful and constructive purposes, rather than the purposes of destruction and death. The research station at Langley is, of course, primarily engaged in research, but the potentialities of the work which it has already done are simply immense.
I have seen a model of the reactor which will be opened in September.

There is one thing that impresses me about the sheer machinery of this new development, and that is how beautiful it is. When one thinks of the old forms of industry in this country, the ugly factories and the dirt and the grime which accompany them, and then sees these new modern scientific developments, one is astonished at the beauty of their outlines. If one goes to the exhibition on the higher floors of this House, one can see the beauty of modern architecture, and one can then begin to visualise what the new civilisation may be in a few years' time as a result of these discoveries.
It is not merely the beauty of these research installations which impresses one, but also their tremendous possibilities. Hospitals, and groups of hospitals, under the activities which are dealt with by this Bill, will have isotopes easily available. By means of the activities which are now proceeding this new power may operate on the greatest liners. There is a town in Sweden in which already an experiment is proceeding whereby every house will be heated by means of this power, and there are all the possibilities of great industrial plants being conducted by this means.
This Bill covers both the public authority and the private industries which are engaged in nuclear development. Because of the tremendous constructive importance of such development, I urge that we should place public service first in its application, not only in the development of our own country, but in the development of the great underdeveloped countries of the world. This new power can carry through a revolution. I welcome the Bill because it is clear that in that development the safety of man will be taken as the first consideration.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. Robens: I have spoken about this Bill so much that I do not now propose to detain the House for more than a few moments. I want to say how much we have appreciated the work of the Parliamentary Secretary and the Paymaster-General. Those of us with some experience of the Department of which they are the political representatives in the House know that it carries a very heavy burden and that the Bill is only one small portion of the work it


faces. It is also concerned with extremely difficult problems of great magnitude and of tremendous importance to the nation.
The work done by the Paymaster-General and the Parliamentary Secretary on what has been a very difficult Bill, since it has dealt with a very technical subject which is new to all of us, has been very commendable and I want to make up for the hard things I have said in Committee from time to time by expressing my thanks and appreciation to them.
It is probably not generally realised that as a nation we have spent about £475 million of the nation's money on research into atomic energy. That is a colossal sum. We have reaped the benefit in having established a number of nuclear power stations. But we have done more than that. We have enabled a number of groups of companies further to develop the work of the Atomic Energy Authority and to commercialise all that £475 million has produced.
We are parting with a Bill which meets the problems which the commercialisation of atomic energy produces. It is perfectly clear that there will be a tremendous increase in research and development in this subject. In view of the very dangerous nature of these undertakings, it was essential that we legislated to provide for the safety of the public and of those who work in the industry and to ensure maximum safety all round not by good management, but by ensuring that the legislation provided a pathway down which management would have to tread. This is that Bill.
I do not want to refer to any specific details in the Bill. I am absolutely satisfied that in Committee and subsequent stages, here and elsewhere, the Bill has been subjected to the closest scrutiny and that all suggestions which were constructive and which made sense were readily studied by the Ministers responsible for piloting the Bill. On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself, I say that we are well satisfied with the way in which all our arguments have been well met by the Paymaster-General and the Parliamentary Secretary.
Like the Parliamentary Secretary, I believe that this is perhaps only a beginning. We do not know where we shall go, but at least this is a beginning and all of us who have been associated with it can feel some pride in the fact that we have launched a new type of legislation. As the years go by, and nuclear energy develops, it may well be that the legislation will change, but at least we shall have laid a good foundation for that future legislation. I welcome the Bill. We shall gladly facilitate its Third Reading.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Maudling: The Bill has had a varied Parliamentary career, but now that we have reached the final stage, I think that we can say that its main structure has stood exhaustive and properly critical scrutiny while at the same time many improvements have been made.
I express my thanks to the Parliamentary Secretary who, throughout, has carried by far the greater part of the burden of the work. I also express my appreciation of the way in which the Opposition have co-operated in getting the Measure into its present sound and constructive form, and I hope that the House will now give it its Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

INCOME TAX (PENSION ANNUITY BUSINESS IN THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND)

Resolved,
That it is expedient to authorise any incidental charge to income tax which may arise from extending the operation of section four hundred and twenty-nine of the Income Tax Act, 1952, in the case of assurance companies carrying on pension annuity business in the Republic of Ireland.—[Mr. Maudling.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

NUCLEAR POWER PROGRAMME

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]

8.27 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: I am sure that we have had nearly enough of nuclear energy for one day, but I hasten to assure the Parliamentary Secretary that it is merely a coincidence that we have to continue to discuss the subject on this day, as I am sure he knows. I also cheerfully confess that this is a formidable subject for an Adjournment debate. That was my expectation when I thought that we would have only the usual half an hour. It happens that we have rather longer, but it still remains a formidable subject for an Adjournment debate.
However, I am raising this matter of the development of the British nuclear power programme because I feel that the life of this present Parliamentary Session is running out, as is the life of this Parliament. In those circumstances, I think it right to amplify the viewpoints which I have recently been able to put at Question Time. In doing so, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will acquit me in advance of any hostility to the nuclear power programme as such, or any desire artificially to protect any other energy source. I am anxious that Britain should pursue a fuel and power policy which will make the most effective use of all our available primary energy resources. I am prepared also to accept that in a trading nation that cannot exclude fuel imports.
I am prepared not only to accept that as a basis but to argue that true cost must be the normal measure of effectiveness. I know the point has often been made by the Government in defence of their activities in fuel and power matters that they are obliged to work on true cost. I am prepared to accept that as common ground, with the proviso that it is genuinely true cost and not some kind of estimated, ascertained or hypothetical cost.
My concern, and it is shared by some expert opinion, is that if the present fuel investment policies are not looked at rather more critically than the present Minister appears to be doing, they may result in us paying considerably more for

our electricity, which is the accepted universal medium of secondary energy in the years ahead than we might otherwise do. In short, I am afraid that if we are not careful with our fuel investment policies we may have rather dearer electricity than might otherwise be the case.
Some years from now that state of affairs might well be brought about by us having invested too much, too hastily, in high cost nuclear power stations which must, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, be run on the base load of the national electrical demand, thus forcing the lower cost coal fired power stations to carry the varying part of the load under perhaps increasingly uneconomic conditions.
I hope it will be accepted that the figures now available—and these are of course available in the hon. Gentleman's Department—show the conventional power station, whether it be a conventional coal-fired or oil-fired power station, to be a still developing and improving instrument for the making of electricity. That is most important, because it is all too easy to suppose that once a new technique starts existing techniques automatically wither and die.
There are some examples in technological history of that happening. I suppose the classical example is the way in which the stagecoach disappeared very quickly with the advent of the railway engine. However, the aeroplane has been with us for a long time, and those of us who travel on the roads know that the motor vehicle as a means of transport is certainly not withering or disappearing.
When one is thinking about new techniques, one must be careful not to fall too easily into the error of thinking that the older techniques will stand still. In power production in fact the old techniques may on occasions be stimulated into fresh activity by the coming into being of the new ones.
I yield to none in my admiration for the intellectual qualities of those gentlemen who are often referred to as "the nuclear knights". I say with great respect. The phrase was used by the President of the Board of Trade in a recent debate and will therefore soon become immortal, but I can claim to my pleasure a more than "nodding acquaintance" with one or two of these gentlemen.
But there is always a danger that even the most reputable and important scientific men may overrun themselves and not count the cost. That is why I am glad that Sir Christopher Hinton has moved from the Atomic Energy Authority, where he did such fine work, to the more commercial atmosphere and practice of the Central Electricity Generating Board. He has moved away from an authority which, in the matter of its funds, is largely a direct charge upon the taxpayer. He is now chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board whose business it is to make sufficient electricity for the country, and to make it as cheaply as possible.
The change of position of Sir Christopher has already brought a new realism to nuclear discussions. In the Axel Johnson lecture which he gave in Stockholm in 1957, when he was still with the Atomic Energy Authority, he said that nuclear power could hope to be cheaper than coal-produced power by 1965. That was a very important international lecture, the report of which had a wide circulation. Just a month or so ago, at Torquay, at the British Electrical Power Convention, I was present to listen to Sir Christopher admit that he had been wrong in his estimate and that the break-even date could not now be before 1970 at least.
One reason he gave was the falling capital cost of conventional power stations. It is a remarkable fact that in spite of the increase in the cost of labour and materials in recent years the cost of conventional power stations has stood still, in money terms per kilowatt installed, and is now showing a tendency to fall. Sir Christopher Hinton recognised that as one of the reasons, and said that it could now be expected that there would be a stabilisation in the price of coal. Until recently it had been assumed by most people that the price of coal would continue to rise, but that is no longer the case. There is not yet much suggestion that it will fall, but there is reason to believe that with the improved position of coal supplies in relation to demands it will at least stabilise.
I suggest that the earlier figures, which have now proved to be wrong, were the ones which allowed the present

Minister, in 1957, to revise the nuclear power programme in an upward direction. It was advanced from the proposal contained in the 1955 White Paper, that we should aim at 2,000 megawatts of nuclear power by 1965, to the proposal that we should aim at 5,000 or 6,000 megawatts. There were then other objective reasons for the change. There was the continuing coal shortage, and also the discovery that it was possible to build rather larger nuclear power stations more economically than smaller ones. Techniques had already improved to allow that to be done.
Among the consortia of engineering firms there was naturally some commercial concern for an increase because they had invested a vast amount of capital and wanted to see that there was plenty of work ahead. No doubt all those factors were in the mind of the noble Lord when, as Minister, he made that decision. But just now I used the word "allowed" deliberately; I do not believe the Minister would have allowed the increase to come about unless he was convinced that the cost figures given to him at the time made it economically sound.
It has now been accepted that those figures have been falsified by the march of events. I am not saying that this is the fault of anybody. There were too many unknowns in the equation—the matter of the comparison between the expected future cost of nuclear fuel as against the cost of coal, for example. It was thought that the price of coal would go up steadily, and it was also thought that the price of uranium would probably come down rather rapidly. That was based on the assumption that we should gain quite a lot extra financially from the value of the plutonium credit. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, that has not been the case. If anything, the price of uranium and all associated with it in the matter of its use as a nuclear fuel is not showing as much a tendency to fall as was once assumed.
There is also the matter of interest charges. One must remember how much capital is involved in electrical power production. At the time when this thing was first planned, in 1955 at any rate, the average rate of interest was, say, 4


per cent. Now it is about 5½ per cent., which has made a tremendous difference to the economic balance. Though cheaper from the point of view of immediate running costs, the capital cost of a nuclear power station is excessive indeed when compared with that of a conventional power station.
I have said that in my view this was the fault of nobody in particular, but it is certainly the responsibility of the Minister in general. I appreciate his dilemma. It must be extremely difficult for a Minister, when surrounded by many experts, to know just which way to turn. At Question Time recently I suggested to the Paymaster-General that the Generating Board, if it could have its way, would now perhaps prefer to have a rather smaller nuclear power programme. The Paymaster-General answered that no advice had been given to the Ministry by the Generating Board. I must accept that because it is not for me to say. But I hope it will not be forgotten by the Ministry—I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not mind my mentioning this—that under the Electricity Act, 1957, it is the Electricity Council which is the advisory body to the Minister. The Council more fully represents the whole of the electricity supply industry and the Generating Board is a component.
The Council is strong in the representation of area boards to whom we must look for effective competition with oil in the matter of energy sales, and oil is becoming an increasingly effective competitor. I am trying to hint tactfully that the point of view of the whole of the electricity supply industry, both wholesale and retail, must be taken into account, rather than allowing the over-keen technological enthusiasts to have their own way all the time. We must preserve a sense of commercial reality.
I should like to develop my general argument further, but I am sure there is a limit to what the Parliamentary Secretary can endure at this time in the evening and I think there is a limit to the amount of cruelty which I can inflict upon myself.
I shall bring my case to a close by putting these points. I accept that we are so far committed to the present nuclear programme that it must be completed. There is no doubt about that.

Looking back in retrospect things might have been a little different, but we are not able to make any change at this stage, and the ten or twelve stations now planned for 1967, which includes the Hunterston Scottish station, must, of course, be completed. It would be most disheartening to all those who have worked so hard in the matter of planning design and construction of these stations if there were any setback, and I think that it would be very bad for the prestige of the country. The present programme must, therefore, go ahead.
We must also accept that the earlier forecasts of really cheap power from these stations are not likely to be realised. That should be understood. We must also accept that the improved cost outlook for conventional power stations and the improved coal supply position are factors which should not be ignored. I appeal, therefore, to the Parliamentary Secretary to represent to his noble Friend the view that the post-1965 nuclear power programme must be thought about very carefully indeed.
It may be, of course, that by 1970 or 1980, or whatever ultimate date has been suggested, the whole of British electricity supply will go over to nuclear fission or even part nuclear fusion, if at that time the ZETA project begins to yield results. But when we talk about some date remotely in the future for the complete change-over of the electricity supply system of the country to nuclear generation, it can only be on one condition, that at that time it pays us to do so. I should have thought that was a qualification which it was most important to make.
Other countries are obviously proceeding with caution in this matter. They realise, as we must all realise, that nuclear techniques are changing all the time and that we are only at the beginning of the road. They certainly do not wish to be caught out with a lot of capital tied up in the wrong designs. The West European countries are also now paying increasing attention to their heavy surplus stocks of coal and thinking about the possibilities of oil coming, perhaps fairly easily in a few years at a very low price, from the Sahara. Therefore, they are not rushing ahead over-fast with nuclear development. They are prepared to do a little, of course, and


to co-operate with the Americans to a certain extent. I wish that they were more ready to co-operate with this country in the matter of nuclear development, but, at any rate, they are extremely cautious. I shall be very grateful to have the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary on these observations which, I assure him, are put forward in the most constructive and intended helpful spirit.

8.50 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Sir Ian Horobin): Although we have rather more time than we might have had, I am sure that the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) will agree that this is not the occasion for too large-scale a development of this fascinating and important problem. As I think he knows, my own interests, looking back to my Cambridge days, have always been in the realm of nuclear physics, and I am sure that I can echo his references to the outstanding contribution which British men, I think one can say of genius, have made in this field, both in the theoretical and practical development of nuclear energy.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman did not introduce what he had to say, as recently some of his right hon. and hon. Friends have tended to do, by saying that we must consider the nuclear programme from the point of view of a rescue operation on behalf of the coal industry. He was very careful to say that that was not his approach, and I am sure that he was right in so doing.
It is important, however, that we should not go from one extreme to the other in this matter. There was a time—though I do not think responsible people ever took this view—when, to judge from some of the popular newspaper presentations, the day was only just round the corner when the whole power industry would be revolutionised by developments of this kind. Now I sense a tendency for the pendulum, as so often happens, to swing to the other extreme, and to suggest that the whole thing is an unfortunate mistake and completely miscalculated, and that it is rather a pity that we cannot liquidate the whole affair. That is an even more disastrous misconception of the position.
I believe that one can be most helpful in a short speech, which is all that is

appropriate, by trying to bring some of the facts up to date. I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman said, that nobody can be dogmatic, least of all when one is trying to look into the 1980s and 1990s towards the millennium. We can only go on what are the best calculations and assessments of the extraordinarily able men who are concerned with this subject. They do not all agree, but one can take an average and use one's judgment to the best of one's ability.
First, what is the latest state of play, so to speak, in the cost comparison between conventional and nuclear stations? At present, a bracket of between ·50d. and ·65d. per unit sent out would be a fair assessment for conventional stations. The variation depends on siting and other factors. For nuclear stations of what are now regarded as the conventional type, the most recent figures would be between ·65d. and ·70d.
Here I would draw attention to the fact that the statement that nuclear energy today is 40 per cent. more expensive than conventional power is due simply to comparing the cheapest possible coal with the dearest existing nuclear energy. That is quite an unfair comparison. In this country one cannot find enough sites left where a large river with enough cooling water flows past a large and efficient modern pit with twenty or thirty years of coal available in it.
It is almost certain that in any case, as years go on, even if there were no nuclear power, some conventional coal stations would have to be sited far from the coal fields. Therefore, it is quite unreasonable and gives a wrong impression simply to take the cheapest coal and compare it with the dearest nuclear power. One can do no more than give a rough and ready calculation because, as I say, the circumstances vary.
One has to consider the growth in demand for electricity, much of it around London. One has to consider both the cost and also the amenity aspects of stringing yet more long transmission lines acros the country to meet demand in, say, south-eastern England from a conventional power station sited on a coalfield in the Midlands, and so forth. It would be more accurate to say that, at present, about 15 per cent. or,


possibly, 20 per cent. difference in costs separates the two types of station.
Those figures, again, can easily give a false impression. They are based on the cost of units sent out from the station. But one must not give anyone the impression that nuclear production would mean electricity 15 per cent. dearer for the consumer. It would be nothing like that at all because, of course, the percentage increase in the cost which the consumer pays, which has to carry all the costs of transmission, and so forth, would be very much less than that. Indeed, at the present moment, if one said that it was half that, that would probably be an overstatement.
In a full debate, one could, of course, elaborate on the situation at present, but I will leave it there now and come to the years which are immediately to follow. I am not now dealing with the distant future but with the next ten years. It is said that the price of coal is more stable, and this, happily, is true. However, the price of coal has risen by over 70 per cent. during the last ten years. Would anybody really suggest that it was realistic to base policy on the idea that, in twenty years, coal will not be 5s., 6s. or 7s. a ton dearer than it is now?
One must hope that that will be the case, but I think that many people in the industry would have to consider very carefully the implications of such a basis of policy. It might mean a very drastically reduced production of coal so as to concentrate on the more efficient and cheaper pits, or, if one wanted to keep something like the same kind of scale in the industry as we have now, having regard to its cost structure, there might well be other implications. I do not think that anyone can really say that we could base our policy with any certainty on the price of coal remaining absolutely stable during the next twenty years.
On the other hand, of course, there will be some quite definite savings on the nuclear side. I am not now talking about changes of type. I am assuming that we go on building, as it were, more Calder Halls. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the price of uranium. This was one of the few parts of his speech which I did not quite follow. It is far more likely, in my humble opinion, that the price of

uranium will fall when the present contracts run out than it is that the price of coal will remain absolutely stable over the next twenty years.
What I put to the hon. Gentleman is that a quite small but by no means impossible increase in the price of coal over the next twenty years, with at least one quite probable reduction in the price of the raw material for the nuclear stations, will mean that the present disadvantage of about 15 or 17 per cent. against nuclear energy will very probably be further reduced. That, of course, is only the beginning of the story. That is merely to say that, in trying to develop this great new industry, we have not started on something which shows a hopeless and uneconomic comparison between nuclear production and conventional production.
To consider the problem simply as a comparison between certain stations and their possible alternative from coal is to misconceive the situation. This programme was not embarked on on the basis that it would immediately save money by generating electricity in this new way. It was embarked on on the basis that somewhere in the later 1960s the fall in the price of generating by nuclear energy will cross the line of the cost of generating by coal. That situation remains true as far as anyone can estimate it. It is arguable whether it is likely to be 1965, but few people would say that it will be as late as 1970. It may be 1967, 1968 or 1969.
It is essential that we should bear in mind that we are not talking about whether electricity generated by nuclear processes will become cheaper than electricity generated by coal. All that we are discussing is whether it will take place in the first part of the later 1960s or the second half. I have gone into the point very carefully with all the instructed authorities in the country. We have obtained all the advice that we can get, not only from the Central Electricity Generating Board and Sir Christopher Hinton, but from the A.E.A. No one disputes that within the measurable future generation by nuclear energy will become substantially cheaper than by coal.
No one will be dogmatic about this point. It may shift a year or two one way or the other, but I do not think the hon. Gentleman or anyone else can


point to a recognised authority—there is certainly no advice about it available to the Government—which would deny that in the not too distant future it will be more economic to develop—

Mr. Palmer: I accept all of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but he will appreciate that the argument is to get correct balance in time in the amount of investment, particularly in relation to the types of nuclear power stations.

Sir I. Horobin: I was coming to that point. If we are right in setting to work to build up an industry capable of developing these new sources of scientific power, it becomes clear that we cannot chop and change on short-term considerations.
The British nuclear programme is a very carefully considered whole. No one will say that the industry will not make mistakes in future, although we have been remarkably free from them hitherto owing to the skill of those concerned. However, it is a carefully balanced whole. We must avoid at all cost making the mistake, which has been too frequent in British development in other spheres, of having a whole series of drawing board types—even, if I may use the analogy from the aircraft industry, a whole series of brilliant performers at Farnborough but not enough squadrons.
Provided that we have, broadly speaking, developed on right lines, we must back our fancy, as it were, pick what looks like a promising type and then get the best out of it. If we wait for perfection, we will wait for ever. There will never be a time when we will be able to say, "We have now at last found for certain the very best perfect type ". We have gone into the matter as carefully as possible We thought that in the light of the experience available in the A.E.A. and the Generating Board, that what we broadly call the Calder Hall type has several years of valuable development before it.
That is not the end. About 1961, it is hoped that the advanced gas-cooled reactor will become critical, and it is quite possible, if it is successful, that by about 1965 the first commercial type will be in operation. After that, we have to consider the fast breeder reactor now being developed at Dounreay, and the other, with which we have close relation-

ships, in the United States. It may be of interest to the hon. Member that during the next month or two it is expected that Dounreay will begin a period of low-power testing. The work so far done has been exceedingly successful and, if all goes well, by about 1970 we may hope that that type will come in. It has, of course, exciting possibilities, not only because of its great cheapness in capital cost but also as part of the balanced programme. By that time we shall have produced a substantial number of the Calder Hall type of station, all producing plutonium—and one of the problems will be what to do with it. Of course, the breeder reactor type gives great flexibility and, therefore, is all part of a carefully-designed plan of development. The point that I am trying to make is that we are not putting all our eggs obstinately into one basket. In this country, we cannot do what the United States has done—perhaps the hon. Gentleman has seen at Idaho what I can only describe as the "reactor zoo", containing every conceivable type of reactor. Were we to spread our resources in that way, or were we to wait until someone else had produced the perfect answer, we should practically be abdicating from this field.
Therefore, we have, first, a type of plant that is reasonably economic, and which, although never expected to be at once as cheap is not seriously dearer, and shows signs of becoming comparatively less expensive. We have a carefully chosen next stage that we hope will begin to come in in a few years and, beyond that, we have the breeder reactor. I am not dealing with the possibilities of fusion because, from a commercial point of view, that is far too far ahead.
If that is the position, what we have to consider is not, so to speak, an individual station but an industry as a whole capable of developing in an orderly fashion such as I have tried to describe. I put it to the hon. Member, and I hope that it will commend itself to the House and to the country generally, that our primary consideration now—subject always to the fundamental brainwork of the A.E.A. and the consortia—should be a healthy nuclear industry.
We therefore have to bear in mind—partly as a result, as the hon. Gentleman


himself pointed out, of the consortia themselves producing between them a situation where it became possible to build very much bigger stations than anyone had originally thought of—that there are only about half a dozen more stations—I do not tie myself to one figure or another—to come into the present programme.
We cannot afford to run any risk of completely unbalancing the structure of the industry by interfering with that programme, and I think that the hon. Gentleman indicated that he accepted that that was so. After this programme is completed it will be necessary to make further decisions, but there is no need for them to be made now. Urgent preliminary consideration is, of course, being given to the subject, but no final decision need yet be made. The stations that will be built in the 1966-67-68 period will not require to be finalised for another twelve months or two years—

Mr. Palmer: I am trying to look ahead. The decision will have to be made by this or a successive Government, so one must be thinking of these things.

Sir I. Horobin: As I say, we are giving these questions great thought, but no final decision needs to be made at present.
One of the biggest considerations, of course, will be decided well in advance of that date, and that is, how the advanced gas cooled reactor prototype works out. I agree entirely with the hon. Member that great thought must be and is being given by the Generating Board, by the Electricity Council, by the A.E.A., and by the Ministry; but we are committed, as it were, for the next year or two, broadly speaking, to the

type of programme and how it is to be carried out. It must not be, it cannot be, thought to be interfered with.
We have a period—not a long period, I agree, but a period—in which we can in a careful fashion in the light of our success or otherwise—I hope, our success, particularly in connection with the advanced gas cooled reactor and the progress at Dounreay—make up our minds what we will do in the years after 1965, but I think it is very important that everybody should realise that a nuclear programme on the scale of this country's must be a long-term, carefully-balanced programme and cannot be interrupted by fits and starts and lurches in response to short-term considerations. We are not concerned, as I said before, primarily with exact calculations whether a particular station would be rather cheaper one way or another.
We have to take a big view of this. We are entering a new field in which Great Britain has already made for itself a leading position. In fact, it is not too much to say we are not just a major civil nuclear Power: we are the major civil nuclear Power. Long may we remain so. The need for thought and care in investment and design is great. We are entirely with the hon. Member in that, but I do hope we may have the support of informed Members such as himself on the other side of the House to resist at all costs any injudicious interference with the proper development of that programme either in order to come to the rescue of alternative sources of supply or in an effort at economies which we may live to regret.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Nine o'clock.